Lincoln Chafee: The US should convert to metric units

[4321lynx]

Well, what if you travel? If you're in a foreign country and you see that you need to go twenty kilometers to see some tourist attraction you're interested in, how are you going to get there? It's not like there's some some kind of magic device you can carry in your pocket to do the conversion for you automatically in manner of seconds or anything.

^^^^ This ^^^^

What I don't get about this debate is, if we grant that worldwide standardization of terminology is important enough that we need to put people to the trouble of changing whether they call something "10 feet" or "3 meters" even though most of us don't feel like all that mental relabeling is worth the effort to us, then why the bejesus are the fans of metric conversion dicking around with anything as trivial as metric conversion? Shouldn't they be focusing on the big picture? Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

The metric system is not Esperanto. The Imperial system is rather like trying to stick to the Roman numeric system and trying to do modern mathematics with it. And I think most backers of the metric system are thinking of their, and your, children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren who will one day laugh at Old Fuddy-Daddies and great grand daddies who fought these delaying actions because "they couldn't be bothered" with such unAmerican activities.

Why did the US go over to the unAmerican system of decimal currency and leave the splendid money of farthings, pence, shillings, Florins, Half-crowns, pounds and guineas, much of it done to the "magic" base of 12?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, what if you travel? If you're in a foreign country and you see that you need to go twenty kilometers to see some tourist attraction you're interested in, how are you going to get there? It's not like there's some some kind of magic device you can carry in your pocket to do the conversion for you automatically in manner of seconds or anything.

^^^^ This ^^^^

What I don't get about this debate is, if we grant that worldwide standardization of terminology is important enough that we need to put people to the trouble of changing whether they call something "10 feet" or "3 meters" even though most of us don't feel like all that mental relabeling is worth the effort to us, then why the bejesus are the fans of metric conversion dicking around with anything as trivial as metric conversion? Shouldn't they be focusing on the big picture? Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

Good questions.

My impression is that most people trying to get the US to switch to metric think the metric system is just better (perhaps, due to allegedly less mental effort to learn and use on average, or something like that) than the US system, so the reasons for the change are not limited to standardization, and they might think standardization is not good enough a reason, on its own - also, it may well just be that most of their usual opponents on other issues (their out-group) actually want to keep the US system, so the whole thing is mostly an in-group vs. out-group confrontation.

Alternatively - or additionally, but applicable to a smaller number of people; still, this part is even more speculative -, some people may think standardization would justify imposing the inconveniences that a change in units would bring, but not the bigger inconveniences that a change in language (even if it's to the much widely know English, rather than to Esperanto) would bring - despite the fact that a change in language would also be a much bigger standardization as you point out -, and/or they just think the probability that they (i.e., those activists put together) will manage to persuade enough people with power to change units in the US is high enough to justify giving it a shot, whereas they reckon the chances of managing a similar worldwide change in language are negligible.

Then again, for some people promoting a world wide change to English (but perhaps not to Esperanto; they might object on other grounds) might just raise an "imperialism" red flag - rendering it taboo -, but promoting a US change to metric wouldn't.

So, I don't know.

 

[SimpleDon]

There really is no valid defence of an invalid position. You are free to cling to a system based on the length of some guy's shoe and then divide it into 12ths and 64ths...
Just to make it safer for the rest of us, please mention your deciphobia at the beginning, should you ever be considered for such a position.

You're not the first in this thread to express deciphile feelings. But the fact remains that 10 is objectively less useful that 12. Its obvious once you consider that despite having a decimal base numeral system for so long 12 based fractional units crept in.

Certain numbers are just better for division that that's what measurement is about aside from standardization. Mathematicians call these numbers highly composite numbers. Think of these numbers as opposite of prime numbers. This site coined the term versatile number. A number that has a greater number of factors than any smaller number. Some other versatile numbers for you to consider 60 and 360. Do you think it would be better to standardize time and circles to a decimal based measurement?

But composite numbers are only an advantage if you are do your computations using fractions. The advantage of a decimal system is that you don't have to use fractions.

If you measure a distance with a foot, inch and fraction of inch tape measure and have to divide it into say five even segments with a calculator here is what you have to do,

• Make the measurement in feet, inches and a fraction of an inch.
• Convert the fraction into decimal inches.
• Add the decimal conversion of the fractional inch to the inches measurement.
• Convert either the feet into inches and add them to the inch and decimal conversion of the fractional portion of the measurement.
• or convert the inches and decimal conversion of the fractional part of the measurement into a decimal foot and add it to the feet portion of the measurement.
• Divide the number by five.
• The easy part is over, now,
• If the number you used was total inches and the decimal conversion of the fractions divide the segment length by 12, keep the whole number of as the feet segment length.
• Multiply the feet segment length by 12 and subtract it from the total inches and decimal segment length that you got from dividing by 5 back in the easy part.
• The number that you get is the inches and the decimal inch portion of the segment length, the whole number is the number of inches in the segment length.
• The decimal portion of this number has to be converted into a fraction.
• Look at your tape measure and see what the smallest fraction of an inch the tape can measure, it is probably 1/8 or 1/16th of an inch.
• Take the divisor of the smallest fraction of an inch the tape can measure, 8 or 16, and multiply it by the decimal part of the inch of the segment length
• Round off the number you get.
  If you get an odd number you are done, the number is approximately the dividend of the fractional part of the segment length.
• If the number is even then you have to keep dividing the number of and the divisor by 2 until the result for the dividend is an odd number.
• If you resolved the total length into feet and decimal feet and divided by five the whole number is the segment feet and multiply the decimal portion by 12 to get inches and decimal inches, proceed as above to convert the decimal inch into a fraction of an inch that you can use with your tape.

If you have a metric tape measure use it to measure the total length and divide that number by five to find the segment length. Done.

The way that this is done with the standard system is so complex and error prone that carpenters hardly ever use it. They use descriptive geometry. They use a right triangle with the adjacent leg the length to be divided and the hypotenuse a length evenly divisible by the number of segments wanted. They use their square or a plumb bob from the hypotenuse to the adjacent side. This is the way that it has been done for thousands of years.

 

[SimpleDon]

Well, what if you travel? If you're in a foreign country and you see that you need to go twenty kilometers to see some tourist attraction you're interested in, how are you going to get there? It's not like there's some some kind of magic device you can carry in your pocket to do the conversion for you automatically in manner of seconds or anything.

^^^^ This ^^^^

What I don't get about this debate is, if we grant that worldwide standardization of terminology is important enough that we need to put people to the trouble of changing whether they call something "10 feet" or "3 meters" even though most of us don't feel like all that mental relabeling is worth the effort to us, then why the bejesus are the fans of metric conversion dicking around with anything as trivial as metric conversion? Shouldn't they be focusing on the big picture? Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

Are you joking like dismal is or is this intended to be serious? If you intended this to be silly then I can laugh and go on.

 

[Bronzeage]

Wouldn't business benefit? If they didn't have to keep two separate inventories of labels for products to sell in English-System markets and the-rest-of-the-world markets, they could streamline a lot of their inventory, shipping, marketing. And pass the cost savings along to the consumer, so we could buy the pocket conversion calculators that'll make the inconvenience hardly noticeable.

Admittedly Boeing has little difficulty exporting its products with presumably American screws and other fasteners and American gauge electrical wiring, but what about other exporters? Cars, tractors etc. Or is America forever going to be an importer with little desire to increase exports of manufactured items?

I'm pretty sure a Boeing aircraft is engineered and constructed in metric units. I am real sure that cars and tractors are held together with metric threaded fasteners.

A lot of the stuff I work on these days predates what was once called English or American Standard threads. Screws and bolts would be manufactured for the sole use of the factory. Thread cutting tools were made by a tool maker and it was possible his personal preference was unique. This is a real challenge for some restoration projects. It was a good while before there were uniform screw threads.

 

[Nexus]

The advantage of a decimal system is that you don't have to use fractions.

That's not an advantage. If we used a base 12 numeral system and standardized all measurement to 12 we would still have "decimal" points if necessary. I put decimal in quotes because while the etymology of the word decimal implies base 10, the mathematical reality is that you can have "decimal" points in any number base. The difference is that with a highly composite number base like 12 even the "decimal" representations would be more precise. 1/3 in base 10 is approximately .333 but in a base 12 it would be precisely .4

Of course we would have to abandon hindu-arabic numerals (0-9) to make this work. Just like society abandoned roman numerals once we started using our current base 10 positional numeral system.

 

[dismal]

Admittedly Boeing has little difficulty exporting its products with presumably American screws and other fasteners and American gauge electrical wiring, but what about other exporters? Cars, tractors etc. Or is America forever going to be an importer with little desire to increase exports of manufactured items?

I'm pretty sure a Boeing aircraft is engineered and constructed in metric units. I am real sure that cars and tractors are held together with metric threaded fasteners.

This almost makes it sound as if people who derive some benefit from using the metric system can go ahead and use it without a law that requires the hundreds of millions to switch for whom switching would mean nothing but cost, inconvenience, and planes dropping from the sky.

 

[barbos]

The advantage of a decimal system is that you don't have to use fractions.

That's not an advantage. If we used a base 12 numeral system and standardized all measurement to 12 we would still have "decimal" points if necessary. I put decimal in quotes because while the etymology of the word decimal implies base 10, the mathematical reality is that you can have "decimal" points in any number base. The difference is that with a highly composite number base like 12 even the "decimal" representations would be more precise. 1/3 in base 10 is approximately .333 but in a base 12 it would be precisely .4

Of course we would have to abandon hindu-arabic numerals (0-9) to make this work. Just like society abandoned roman numerals once we started using our current base 10 positional numeral system.

And what is 1/5 in your "best ever" system?
Fractions are stupid and actually hard to compare fast, that's why stock market monkeys got rid of them

 

[barbos]

I'm pretty sure a Boeing aircraft is engineered and constructed in metric units. I am real sure that cars and tractors are held together with metric threaded fasteners.

This almost makes it sound as if people who derive some benefit from using the metric system can go ahead and use it without a law that requires the hundreds of millions to switch for whom switching would mean nothing but cost, inconvenience, and planes dropping from the sky.

The whole world is metric already for the most part, and Boeing has a lot of contractors all over the world, even in Russia.

 

[dismal]

That's not an advantage. If we used a base 12 numeral system and standardized all measurement to 12 we would still have "decimal" points if necessary. I put decimal in quotes because while the etymology of the word decimal implies base 10, the mathematical reality is that you can have "decimal" points in any number base. The difference is that with a highly composite number base like 12 even the "decimal" representations would be more precise. 1/3 in base 10 is approximately .333 but in a base 12 it would be precisely .4

Of course we would have to abandon hindu-arabic numerals (0-9) to make this work. Just like society abandoned roman numerals once we started using our current base 10 positional numeral system.

And what is 1/5 in your "best ever" system?
Fractions are stupid and actually hard to compare fast, that's why stock market monkeys got rid of them

It's my understanding it is possible to use decimals within the English system. I even once bought gas from a station that sold me 13.78 gallons and not 13 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint and 2 (fluid) ounces.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm pretty sure a Boeing aircraft is engineered and constructed in metric units. I am real sure that cars and tractors are held together with metric threaded fasteners.

This almost makes it sound as if people who derive some benefit from using the metric system can go ahead and use it without a law that requires the hundreds of millions to switch for whom switching would mean nothing but cost, inconvenience, and planes dropping from the sky.

Actually, that's what the smart ones have already done. If everybody was that smart, we wouldn't need laws against armed robbery.

As it is, people who resist the metric system and it's demonic decimal, are content to buy their tuna fish in an 8.45 ounce can and are none the wiser.

 

[dismal]

content to buy their tuna fish in an 8.45 ounce can and are none the wiser.

The Horror, the Horror.

 

[Bronzeage]

content to buy their tuna fish in an 8.45 ounce can and are none the wiser.

The Horror, the Horror.

As I said, none the wiser.

 

[Bomb#20]

Shouldn't they be focusing on the big picture? Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

Because Esperanto is far from the most widely spoken 'artificial' language.

If you are going to promote such a language, then you should lobby for one with more speakers, like Klingon*.

In fact, we are rapidly approaching a standardised language worldwide; we call it 'English'.

*True story.

Sorry, I should have said, assume without loss of generality that L = Esperanto. If someone's reasoning for his claim that America should go metric is the natural superiority of the metric system over American customary units, let L = Esperanto. If someone's reasoning for his claim that America should go metric is the world's rapidly approaching standardization on the metric system, let L = English. I'm not seeing a scenario for setting L = Klingon, unless somebody is claiming metric units are artificial, customary units are natural, and natural units are sinful.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

The metric system is not Esperanto. The Imperial system is rather like trying to stick to the Roman numeric system and trying to do modern mathematics with it.

And? Compared to Esperanto, natural languages are every bit as much clumsy messes of patched fixes to unnecessary accident-of-history problems as Roman numerals are compared to Arabic, or as customary units are compared to metric.

And I think most backers of the metric system are thinking of their, and your, children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren who will one day laugh at Old Fuddy-Daddies and great grand daddies who fought these delaying actions because "they couldn't be bothered"...

Can you even imagine how much easier it would be for English and Chinese schoolchildren to learn to read if we all switched to Esperanto? The payoff in efficiency would dwarf the long term benefit of going metric. You don't think the grandkids would laugh at the old fuddy daddies who resisted giving up their respective spelling bees and hieroglyphs?

... with such unAmerican activities.

Why did the US go over to the unAmerican system of decimal currency and leave the splendid money of farthings, pence, shillings, Florins, Half-crowns, pounds and guineas, much of it done to the "magic" base of 12?

Now you're just imputing stupid reasons to your opponents as an ad hominem insult. Resistance to metric isn't because it's unAmerican. It's because customary units are habitual and familiar, and because people's discount rate on benefits to children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren relative to costs to themselves is higher than you wish it was.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then again, for some people promoting a world wide change to English (but perhaps not to Esperanto; they might object on other grounds) might just raise an "imperialism" red flag - rendering it taboo

I don't doubt you're right, although it shouldn't. The metric system, which is to say, French units, is imperialistic as all get out. In contrast, to standardize on English is to adopt the common language of the largest and least imperialistic democracy in the history of the world. We would, of course, have to specify theirs as the standard dialect.

 

[Bomb#20]

Shouldn't they be focusing on the big picture? Why aren't they campaigning to get people to switch to Esperanto?

Good questions.

Are you joking like dismal is or is this intended to be serious? If you intended this to be silly then I can laugh and go on.

Hmm. Angra Mainyu thinks they're good questions and SimpleDon thinks they're foolish or a joke. Gee, how should I feel about that? When has disagreeing with Angra Mainyu ever not been one of nature's little warning signs? Come to think of it, the only thing I can recall ever having seen him be wrong about is overestimating another person's capacity to follow an argument.

Dismal isn't joking. Dismal is as always thinking like a practitioner of the dismal science, and therefore taking the common people's discount rate as an independent variable in his calculation of optimality, instead of treating it as a character flaw they should be remonstrated out of.

I'm not joking either -- my post was a reductio ad absurdum. I merely observe that all the arguments I've seen here for imposing the metric system on the American people are better arguments for imposing either Esperanto or English on somebody or other. America will not be left behind by the world if we don't switch to metric. We'll be leaving behind all the countries that don't make their people learn English; whatever stupid units we use will merely diminish by a couple percent the magnitude of the dust we leave them in.

I have no problem with metric units, by the way -- I'm a tech guy and sensibly use nothing else in my professional life. Plus my dad was a freakin' chemistry professor. But I don't see that as a reason to make somebody else switch if he doesn't feel like it.

 

[dismal]

Good questions.

Are you joking like dismal is or is this intended to be serious? If you intended this to be silly then I can laugh and go on.

Hmm. Angra Mainyu thinks they're good questions and SimpleDon thinks they're foolish or a joke. Gee, how should I feel about that? When has disagreeing with Angra Mainyu ever not been one of nature's little warning signs? Come to think of it, the only thing I can recall ever having seen him be wrong about is overestimating another person's capacity to follow an argument.

Dismal isn't joking. Dismal is as always thinking like a practitioner of the dismal science, and therefore taking the common people's discount rate as an independent variable in his calculation of optimality, instead of treating it as a character flaw they should be remonstrated out of.

I'm not joking either -- my post was a reductio ad absurdum. I merely observe that all the arguments I've seen here for imposing the metric system on the American people are better arguments for imposing either Esperanto or English on somebody or other. America will not be left behind by the world if we don't switch to metric. We'll be leaving behind all the countries that don't make their people learn English; whatever stupid units we use will merely diminish by a couple percent the magnitude of the dust we leave them in.

I have no problem with metric units, by the way -- I'm a tech guy and sensibly use nothing else in my professional life. Plus my dad was a freakin' chemistry professor. But I don't see that as a reason to make somebody else switch if he doesn't feel like it.

I was joking only about us about the importance of using non-denominational fuel gauges that have an E for Empty and an F for full with little tick marks that break that down into quarters and eigths as a means of preventing planes from dropping from the sky after converting to the metric system.

Though frankly it seems like it would actually work pretty well if the pilot were not a complete numbnutz.

"the airport says they loaded enough fuel to get from Halifax to Vancouver but I'm only over Montreal and my non unit specific gauge is already down from 3/8th to 1/16th full, but since this new metric system we just switched to is awesome they must be right. Let's keep going."

 

[Nexus]

And what is 1/5 in your "best ever" system?

2.49724792497

So your rebuttal to base 12 is the mentioning the lone fraction in base 10 that isn't precise in base 12. By that stupid logic base 7 is superior to base 10 since 1/7 would be precise. In base 12 the fractional numbers 1/12, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3 1/2 would all be precise numbers to a single decimal point. In base 10 you have a grand total of three fractions that are precise to a single decimal point 1/10, 1/5, 1/2. And the disparity only gets worse as you add decimal point precision.

For those of you that failed 3rd grade and have trouble with fractions let me repeat you're not forced to use fractions in base 12 any more that you are in base 10. However base 12 is also better than base 10 when using decimal notation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And what is 1/5 in your "best ever" system?

2.49724792497

So your rebuttal to base 12 is the mentioning the lone fraction in base 10 that isn't precise in base 12. By that stupid logic base 7 is superior to base 10 since 1/7 would be precise. In base 12 the fractional numbers 1/12, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3 1/2 would all be precise numbers to a single decimal point. In base 10 you have a grand total of three fractions that are precise to a single decimal point 1/10, 1/5, 1/2. And the disparity only gets worse as you add decimal point precision.

For those of you that failed 3rd grade and have trouble with fractions let me repeat you're not forced to use fractions in base 12 any more that you are in base 10. However base 12 is also better than base 10 when using decimal notation.

Why not just represent 1/5th as 0.001100110011... and remove all the complexity? All of those base-whatever systems were fine for the 19th century, but using them now is like giving a letter to a Pony Express rider instead of sending an email.