I find this bickering over the relative merits of measuring how a car
uses gasoline (L/km vs. km/L), is counterproductive, irrespective of
whether 100 L is used instead of 1 L.
BOTH are correct.
Both are useful,
EACH one being more useful than the other in certain considerations
while
the other may be more useful in different situations.
All your arguments that "this one is better than that one" or vice-
versa boil down to nothing more than;
"The one I am familiar with is the best."
That statement should be expanded by saying,
"The one I am familiar with is the best ONLY BECAUSE I AM FAMILIAR
WITH IT."
The reason I find this kind of argument so disturbing is that it is
the same argument that metric opponents use to argue for keeping their
old non-metric units. They are "familiar" so people see them as being
"better" (even when they are not).
If we fail to see these two situation as being the same thing, then we
can never understand the rational of metric opponents. And if we can't
do that, we will never find ways to convince them that metric is better.
Let's turn our energies into finding ways to persuade people that
familiar things are NOT better just because they are familiar, and to
consider the advantages of using metric instead of the "familiar" old
non-metric units.
Let's stop getting bogged down arguing whether L/km is better than km/
L. The arguments I have seen or no better than the argument that "feet
are better than metres because feet are more familiar".
Bill Hooper
1810 mm tall
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================
