How to get the metric system reinvented

4.62 (imperial). Though I admit that I had to find out first what the conversion factor is - no I didn't cheat and use the converter. Why, can't you do such a simple sum? If you can't, my point is proved. One of my colleagues back in the 80s used to challenge me to do such figuring in my head while he used his shiny new electronic calculator. I always won, giving him answers to 5 or 6 decimal places while he was still entering the figures - because I was used to pencil-less calculations of greater complexity.
Cheers
John

Joat42 wrote:

John Prigent wrote:I have to disagree, Joat. The metric system is a convenience for those who can't calculate in their heads and has no other advantages. To the reverse, it encourages people not to bother to learn how to calculate in their heads - a skill that was widespread with the old currencies in earlier years. Do you really want to have Safeholders unable to add, subtract, multiply and divide before they have any calculators to do it for them?
Cheers
John

So you prefer an illogical and arbitrary system that is prone to introducing conversion errors because you believe a rational system will make people stupid and not able to do math? Please...

And regarding doing the math in your head, can you for example calculate how much 8 cubic inches is in fluid ounces (imperial or us) with a precision of 2 decimals without using a pen or a calculator? Or for that matter, to gallons?

A standardized rational system actually promotes science, whereas an arbitrary system with non-uniform conversion factors hampers progress.

With that said, whether Safehold should convert to metric or not is moot at this point. It may change when the information Owl has can be freely distributed though.

thinkstoomuch wrote:This may be related to my screen name but an errant thought.

Is it really a bad thing that ordinary people need to think when using a measurement system in their daily lives?

Instead of adding, a wrench size based on fractions is a not necessarily a bad thing for teaching math as an example.

I must have read this concept somewhere that I don't remember.

Something to think about,
T2M

Yes. It's a very bad thing indeed because it's prone to errors. You're obviously not an engineer. Simplification is everything. Make things as simple as possible and don't FUBAR it.

Obfuscating things just because we can is not a good idea. Ever heard of the KISS principle? I'm sure it was mentioned often enough in MWW's works...

Our modern world is complicated enough. Don't make it more complicated than necessary.

I don't see any merit in the motion that systems of weight, measurement, or anything else, for that matter should be kept harder than necessary "because it makes people think." Time spent doing things the hard way when there is a simpler, more efficient way of doing it is wasted time better spent on another task.

I vote for the metric system.

Don

n7axw wrote:Time spent doing things the hard way when there is a simpler, more efficient way of doing it is wasted time better spent on another task.

By the way, isn't that exactly what Langhorne wanted when he introduced Roman Numerals? Make calculations harder and more time consuming?

chrisd wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am thinking about introducing the earth metric system as is mostly just because i personally greatly prefer the metric system and it makes life easier for measurements so basicly the metric system as it is today

Please don't.

The metric system is yet another of those, superficially appealing, brainstorms that tend to arise in France, Others are V.A.T. and the €uro.

Imperial/U measurement systems have evolved through time and are "Anthropometric", (I.e. related to the human body) and, though arbitrary, have been standardised for some time, including their differences.

The metric system is claimed to be "rational", grew out of the French Revolution and has an incorrect measurement lying at its core.

So, do you prefer something that is merely Arbitrary, or a "Revolting French Cock-up"?

I would very much like to know exactly how Imperial measure is related to the human body! I have neither 12 fingers nor 12 toes for counting on. Nor are fluid and solid ounces the same measure, and for that matter the United States doesn't even use imperial measure - a gallon in the US is only 5/6 of a gallon in the UK, and let us not speak of pecks, bushels or stones!

phillies wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:If metric system was really necessary to promote science how did The US ever lead the world in anything. Or at least since 1950 or there abouts.

Joat42 wrote:Because of WWII, has nothing to do with metric or imperial systems.

Our economy was leading the world from 1900.

Uhm, no. Don't use blanket statements that are not true.

And how did the discussion about metric/imperial units become a pissing contest?

John Prigent wrote:4.62 (imperial). Though I admit that I had to find out first what the conversion factor is - no I didn't cheat and use the converter. Why, can't you do such a simple sum? If you can't, my point is proved. One of my colleagues back in the 80s used to challenge me to do such figuring in my head while he used his shiny new electronic calculator. I always won, giving him answers to 5 or 6 decimal places while he was still entering the figures - because I was used to pencil-less calculations of greater complexity.
Cheers
John

Dear John, I seem to remember we have been through all this stuff on mental arithmetic some time ago. I don't doubt for a moment that all you say about your mental arithmetic skills is true, but you seem a bit less on the ball about the Normal Distribution Curve and how far off to the right of it your kind of ability lies. I was brought up on imperial measurements and lsd ('old money', that is), my first degree was honours maths and physics and my IQ was 130+ in those days (i.e. 2 sd above the mean) and I couldn't easily do the 5 or 6 decimal point mental calculations you are speaking about, even then. Neither could my classmates. Just because you can do these things doesn't mean they are a viable option for most of the population, even most of the population with higher education.

Randomiser wrote:

John Prigent wrote:4.62 (imperial). Though I admit that I had to find out first what the conversion factor is - no I didn't cheat and use the converter. Why, can't you do such a simple sum? If you can't, my point is proved. One of my colleagues back in the 80s used to challenge me to do such figuring in my head while he used his shiny new electronic calculator. I always won, giving him answers to 5 or 6 decimal places while he was still entering the figures - because I was used to pencil-less calculations of greater complexity.
Cheers
John

Dear John, I seem to remember we have been through all this stuff on mental arithmetic some time ago. I don't doubt for a moment that all you say about your mental arithmetic skills is true, but you seem a bit less on the ball about the Normal Distribution Curve and how far off to the right of it your kind of ability lies. I was brought up on imperial measurements and lsd ('old money', that is), my first degree was honours maths and physics and my IQ was 130+ in those days (i.e. 2 sd above the mean) and I couldn't easily do the 5 or 6 decimal point mental calculations you are speaking about, even then. Neither could my classmates. Just because you can do these things doesn't mean they are a viable option for most of the population, even most of the population with higher education.

- v true!

There is a further, perhaps more serious point. I also remember long horrid struggles with pounds, shillings and pence and that almost instiled a hatred of 'sums' which could so easily and unecessarily blighted my later enjoyment of maths and then physics. That enjoyment only came - almost overnight - when someone showed me how to understand equations and work with them. I was fortunate - I suspect that many were not and were turned off, without need, by the mental contortions lsd required!

Joat42 wrote:

phillies wrote:"thinkstoomuch"If metric system was really necessary to promote science how did The US ever lead the world in anything. Or at least since 1950 or there abouts. quote="Joat42"
Because of WWII, has nothing to do with metric or imperial systems./quote

Our economy was leading the world from 1900.

Uhm, no. Don't use blanket statements that are not true.

And how did the discussion about metric/imperial units become a pissing contest?

And the US has officially been metric since 1798.
The US became dominant because its economy didn't get bombed to the stone age twice thirty years. Otherwise we would be flying DeHavilland's or Junker's not Boeing's.

You may be right, Randomiser, but I can't tell you what my IQ is - no-one has ever told me my score when I've taken a test, they just laugh and shrug their shoulders. The nearest I had to an actual employer's comment on a test was 'you're not supposed to be able to finish it that quickly' (I turned that job down, it was an obvious Ponzi scheme).

But I still say that something is wrong when a shop assistant can't calculate a 10% discount on £110,or has to use a calculator to work out 5 weeks' newspaper bill at £6.60 a week. Both are actual examples, and both were decimal.

Cheers

John

Randomiser wrote:

John Prigent wrote:4.62 (imperial). Though I admit that I had to find out first what the conversion factor is - no I didn't cheat and use the converter. Why, can't you do such a simple sum? If you can't, my point is proved. One of my colleagues back in the 80s used to challenge me to do such figuring in my head while he used his shiny new electronic calculator. I always won, giving him answers to 5 or 6 decimal places while he was still entering the figures - because I was used to pencil-less calculations of greater complexity.
Cheers
John

Dear John, I seem to remember we have been through all this stuff on mental arithmetic some time ago. I don't doubt for a moment that all you say about your mental arithmetic skills is true, but you seem a bit less on the ball about the Normal Distribution Curve and how far off to the right of it your kind of ability lies. I was brought up on imperial measurements and lsd ('old money', that is), my first degree was honours maths and physics and my IQ was 130+ in those days (i.e. 2 sd above the mean) and I couldn't easily do the 5 or 6 decimal point mental calculations you are speaking about, even then. Neither could my classmates. Just because you can do these things doesn't mean they are a viable option for most of the population, even most of the population with higher education.