Talk:Metrication opposition/Archive 2

Moving to meta
I'm for moving this page to meta. It doesn't actually say anything about an Antimetrification campaign (such as who supports it, when did it start, what were the significant events of its history.) It's just a load of opinions, delivered with quite a bit of bile, and the attempts of several Wikipedians to counterbalance them with NPOV. And the term "Antimetrification" Googles VERY badly: TWO results. "Anti-metrication" does a little bit better, but it's still crackpot sites whining about their rights to measure. Go and campaign for somebody's right to vote. Pick a real issue. -- Tarquin 22:31 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

No, this is a great page! Not only does it highlight the pro vs. con well, it's also a model of table usage.

By the way, on the "precision" thing:
 * For example, the human body temperature, as expressed in Fahrenheit, always uses a decimal value. 

Normal body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, which is a round number -- not 37.0 degrees. When it's converted into Fahrenheit (to 98.6 degrees), it acquires a phony accuracy due to the excessive precision. The normal range is around 0.5 Fahrenheit. Sometimes parents worry that their child has a fever if the thermometer reads 99.0, but that's actually a normal body temperature. (Not to mention the variation between under-the-tongue, the inner ear and other bodily orifices. --Ed Poor


 * No, this is an awful page! I agree entirely with Tarquin.  I continue to find this article surreal -- it is not in any way an article about a "movement" (Such an article might be interesting); it is more like someone took a segment of a list-serve debate and turned it into a table.  The "counter arguments" sound less like attempts to render the article NPOV than attempts to humor an idea that was bad to begin with.  This page is not at all a great example of listing "pros" and "cons" because the various sides of the argument are so decontextualized and many of them are, frankly, silly.  I have no idea who made any of these arguments, when, or why.  I am left suspecting that some of these arguments were made by an isolated reactionary with too much time on his or her hands.  I realize this may be terribly unfair -- but unless the article provides some context for the debate, it is hard to resist reaching this conclusion.


 * What is needed is a good article on metrification, one that provides all the historical context, including specific, named, and contextualized conflicts that arose during the process of metrification (e.g. in 18xx the French government reverted for the following reasons; or in 19xx Senator A proposed metrification, senators B and C made the following objections...)

Tarquin is right -- the page should be deleted, and the contents transfered to meta or the listserve. Slrubenstein


 * just popping in to say for the record there is metrication, which gives (IMO) a fairly neutral account. -- Tarquin

--- Sheesh. All this talk and someone could have just edited the entry. --The Cunctator

Old version
Old version of the article, for the sake of reference:

Anti-metrication is the process of rejecting the metric system in favor of a different system of measurement, typically the American or the different UK Imperial one. Some of the arguments commonly given for antimetrification (with counterarguments) are:

Similar arguments are used in the UK for retention of imperial units, though the argument that imperial measures are more "stable" is not used. This is probably due to the greater knowledge that there are different gallons, tons, pounds etc. used through the world.

See also: metrication

Are you sure a "real article" will not diverge out of control, too, and the same way the table of arguments did ?


 * An exception to the above rules of thumb is Fahrenheit vs. Celsius, as Fahrenheit was not properly calibrated on its intended scale, and Celsius evenly divides temperature between the freezing and boiling point of water. (The scientific unit of temperature, Kelvin, is calibrated on an absolute scale.) However, Fahrenheit's higher resolution is more useful for describing air temperature. 

Also, I don't understand the paragraph on Celsius vs Fahrenheit. Where are "the above rules of thumb" ? What means "Fahrenheit was not properly calibrated on its intended scale" ? What's the intended scale of Fahrenheit ? How did calibration fail ?

The argument However, Fahrenheit's higher resolution is more useful for describing air temperature is totally unsound. As regards to air temperature, Celsius suits me perfectly, no need for decimals, and I know when it's freezing. As regards to body temperature (looks like a better argument), Fahrenheit must use one decimal too, AFAICanGuess.

If we reintroduce arguments and counter-arguments like this, sure it will go out of control. I'm not convinced there is a need for an article on antimetrication when we have metrication.

-- FvdP 17:59 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Metric Time
I'm going to remove the recent comment:

Time metrication has also been implemented as the cost of replacing all clocks, watches, and timers would be vastly higher than changing any other unit.

because it is non-sensical.

(Aside from the fact it was probably meant to say "not been implemented"), as already explained, the metric system permits the usual set of units (days, hours) for everyday use. The many countries which use the metric system retain these units. Nobody is proposing the kilosecond etc.

--Trainspotter 16:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added that sentence, I think it is useful in that it explains why nobody is proposing the kilosecond etc.- SimonP 16:41, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there is still a misunderstanding. Use of hour etc is not a sign of incomplete metrication, because the metric system already includes the minute, hour and day (see e.g. here).


 * The economic cost of changing clocks is to some extent a side-issue. As far as I can tell, your reasoning seems to be:
 * Full metrication demands kiloseconds etc
 * But it costs too much
 * So supposedly "metric" countries settle for an incomplete metrication which retains hours etc instead


 * whereas I suggest that really it is:
 * The metric system permits choice of e.g. hours or kiloseconds.
 * Of these, people in fully-metric countries choose hours for everyday use, as more convenient because they divide exactly into a day. (Hence also e.g. measuring speeds in km/h, even though for scientific calculations m/s is generally used.)
 * (And incidentally, yes, changing clocks to kiloseconds would also be expensive. But there is no reason to do so, anyway.)


 * --Trainspotter 16:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)