It wastes time when people keep repeating opinions without reason or substantiation. It comes to sound like propaganda instead of discussion.

Slogans instead of reasoning.

Conrad please stop spamming.

Your pro-metric opinions might be entertaining if
you would give REASONS for some of what you just present as if it were god-given truth.

LISTEN TO TO WHAT CONRAD SAYS:

[[keeping the imperial system (which is, in the (very) long term, almost certain to die out) is more important than having a flourishing economy,]]

OUTLASTING OF POUND,INCH,MILE BY METRIC IS NOT
AXIOMATIC.

You are assuming this without offering any reasons
to justify the assumption. If you would give reasons
they might be entertaining, but you just blindly make
a questionable premise. Some other metric rahrah was
doing the same on another thread.

1. 40 years ago we didn't have joules, newtons, teslas, pascals
you couldn't even find them in the standard handbooks.
Instead we had ERGS, DYNES, GAUSSES, and BARS, AND
THOSE WERE THE PREVAILING METRIC UNITS AND THEY DIED. In just 40 years the predominant metric force unit dyne died out
totally and so did kilogram-force for the most part.

But pound and inch are still pound and inch.

So who is transient.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO justify your seeming
belief that newton will outlive pound as measure of force.

2. The mile (thousand paces) has been around since
Roman times. As a unit it "has legs". THE BURDEN OF
PROOF IS ON YOU TO justify your seeming belief that the
kilometer will outlive the mile as measure of highway.

Don't simply repeat like a spam-head the assumption
that metric will outlast Roman vernacular units (like
pound, inch, mile) as if it were some postulate of
your geometry or some sing-song slogan!

3. Scientists are a key minority and historically they prefer units in which there are CLEAN DECIMAL conversion factors. This is a reason to expect metric
not to last. Parts of the scientific community could
switch to a system in which G is millionth, c is billion, e is atto (a modern word for quintillionth) and h-bar is also a power of thousand. The way units
are coming to be defined (by exact values like
299792458 for the meter) it would not be too much trouble to use powers of thousand in the definitions and clean up a lot of mess. THIS REPRESENTS A LONGTERM
VULNERABILITY OF METRIC which compromises its longterm
prospects. Given the fact that scientists like decimal
conversion factors (and the fundamental constants are the main ones) THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU IF YOU wish to regard metric as a permanent feature of the scientific community.

Notice that I am not merely telling you my opinion
that metric will not last (the way you voice
unsubstantiated pro-metric opinion) I am giving you
a REASON why I think kilometer will be replaced by mile in longterm.
(Technical fact if you set G, c, h-bar equal to powers of thousand you get a system in which the unit of highway distance is 1616 meters or essentially a mile.)
You may not understand my reason. I am saying that the fundamental constants of nature favor multiples of 1.6 centimeter in scientific units in the longterm and that reason may seem very strange to you and you may not like it. OK. But at least I am offering a reason.

4. The longterm prospects of SI metric units are compromised by the observable trend to base definitions on exact values of the natural constants
(like meter on 299792458 m/s) and the observable preference of scientists for powers of thousand.

What units prevail in the arenas of commerce is a political question determined to large extent by political fights. but do not assume that the scientific community ( a significant minority) will always be on the SI metric side. If you want to
have that statement in your argument then give reasons
to justify it.



.


Re: no more confusion July 4 2002, 1:33 PM

So, in order to keep our imperial system you want to leave the EU ?

If the majority of the population thinks that keeping the imperial system (which is, in the (very) long term, almost certain to die out) is more important than having a flourishing economy, we should leave the union indeed. But I know there is enough common sense in Britain to realize that we just can't stay as economically strong as we are right now if we'd leave the EU. In other words, the "imperialists" will have reconcile themselves to the fact that long-term economic prosperity is linked with giving up our imperial system.

You know, I personally feel left out of the loop on this site recently- there is no debate really as to which system is better (Imperial/Imperial variants vs. Metric/variants) and all anyone seems to talk about is this new pound inch idea. I am not a scientist, and don't get it- this "debate" is rather boring to me. Oh well, I can always go off somewhere and start bting the heads off wippets again, I suppose.

A question: A new mile ought to be of 60,000 inches (If I recall)- why? This would kill the yard and I prefer it to this "Pace/Double pace". Just because it fits in with your (perhaps insane) notions of poundinchality, I do not view it as a very nice measure (the 60 inch pace, that is).

I think that in many respects our system is a vast improvement over the Roman system- please let's not go backwards here.

Leonard likes the idea of having the speed of light exactly equal to 600,000,000 inches/trice (I don't really agree with him there). If the mile were shortened to 60,000 inches this would make the speed of light a nice neat 10,000 inches per trice. But you're right, in so doing we'd lose the yard - which strikes me as an excellent reason not to do it.

However, what Leonard was talking about above was a system based upon the natural units of the universe, the Planck time (5.3908E-44 s), length (1.6161E-35 m) and mass (2.1766E-08 kg), boosted up by clean powers of ten to more convenient sizes. Then one new mile (1616m) is exactly 100 quintillion quintillion Planck lengths. Scientists already use Planck units in cosmology and fundamental particle physics; moreover, the scientists of any extraterrestrial races throughout the entire universe will also use these units. They are universal in a way that the metric system could never hope to be. So there is reason to believe that over time usage (especially scientific usage) may shift away from SI towards these natural units. Without the support of the scientific community it is perhaps unlikely that the old metric would long survive the shift.

Thanks for that Paul.

My stance is that the yard is an extremely useful and convenient unit, so anything that would destroy it is bad.

I am not a scientist, so can't really contribute to this debate- maybe I'll go off for a bit and learn physics or something...

Hi Bryan,

The Imperial system that you imagine has handsome
ratios, good divisibility, and nice gradations of
size.

It is very handy to have not only inch but also foot and yard. I use non-decimal multiples of inch all the time. Also I like fractions of inch for carpentry very much.

But there seems to be a cultural battle in progress.
Maybe I am wrong but the issue seems to me this:

do we get to keep the inch?

If we get to keep the inch then all the other stuff
will hang around as long as people want it.

If there are inchrules in everybody's house you will
see lots of people using multiples of 12 and 36.

Yesterday I bought mesh to keep raccoons away from
fishpond (they are predators and catch fish). I held
a footrule against the mesh and saw even WITHOUT READING NUMBERS that some was 4-inch square mesh and
some was 6-inch square mesh. Because it was either
half or third of foot. And I could see how many foot
of mesh I needed to buy for the job.

The problem is if they take away the inch. If things
are no longer sold by multiples of inch in hardware
store. Or in yardgoods (cloth) store. My wife is
sewing a dress these days. The neighbor is taking part
in making a quilt, so and so inch squares. She told
me this yesterday. It pervades life.

The attack on the inch is focused on perceived
vulnerabilities. Look at Conrad's posts.
1. the inch is doomed to disappear
2. you who ever you are risk isolation (no one
will want to talk to you because you use outmoded inch)
3. the inch is clumsy unscientific and bad for children

Now how do you couterattack on that field?
You need reasons for saying that the inch is NOT
unscientific and that it is educationally GOOD for
children to learn with and that it will NOT disappear
any time soon and MIGHT even outlast centimeter.

And then to further counterattack you need to go
on continent and find friends of inch, say in Italy.
And you need to have an organization called
Italian Friends of the Inch.
And they need to write a friendly letter to BWMA
board which everybody could see posted.

This is essential to longterm health of inch--it has to be able to demonstrate that it can make friends
and gain "retro" ground on continent.

Actually some Italians (who are instinctively anarchistic royalist throwbacks) would go for being
Friends of Mile because there is Veinte Miglia and it is still part of names of places and some of them remember the Old Days when their miles were all over Europe.

And I would argue that Mile is really progressive
because it is E38 of the natural length unit built into light and gravity (which is used in models of big bang and quantum gravity, in other words the natural length unit used nowadays to describe the basic makeup and beginnings of universe). So it is not just retro chic it is also very progressive.

So why should there not be Mile clubs on continent?

You seem very interested in ratios between units and I am interested in certain individual units. I am worried that the blind insensitive uninformed fools will destroy inch and mile. I no longer care so much about the delicate web of ratios running through the overall system. I think the ratios can reestablish themselves if a few of the basic units are there.

The trouble is that most of the metric fanatics who make such a thing about "the" metric system being so up-to-date and here-to-stay and rational and scientific are also not scientists and don't realise what piffle they're talking.

G. K. Chesteron once remarked to the effect that whenever he heard something new was here to stay he knew it would soon be on its way out.

"Mile clubs..."
Well, there's certainly a mile-high club! I wonder if there's also a kilometer-high club (you don't have to go all the way ... )?

Yes, I am very interested in the ratios between units. Maybe it is the stupid man's science- myself not being knowledgable in the ways of science- but I think that I am interested in this (the ratios between units) as I find it more interesting how people relate units to each other, and how units can be increased in their functionality by changing their ratios. I wish to know how people percieve units and how this affects their "realness" and the general "realness" of the individuals surroundings (I really hope I am making myself clear here).

I look at many systems of measure, older systems especially, and I see many units that have many different ratios between them, and often units do not go into each other "whole" eg. 16 fingers in a foot, 12 inches in a foot, but a finger is three-quarters of an inch.

I wish to find the most efficient numbers, ratios and sizes etc. For me, the problem of metric (one of many) is that it all looks well and good on paper(perhaps), but is not particularly helpful in the way the units relate to each other.

You are interested in the underlying "things", as it were, in nature and the units on a scientific level. That is good, and whilst I do not have adequate scientific knowledge, I appreciate very much yours and other peoples work on this project, so long as it enables the development (or the evolving) of a system of measures that is as true to nature as possible (and as such, is unarbitrary) and manages to increase the ease of use of units for "people". However, I do get slightly worried by you sometimes (:-)) as you are possesed of the same kind of rabid fanaticism that the metricators are, and may end up damaging the cause. Of course, I am joking here, but also trying to make the point that I sometimes fear that in this "quest" we may score an own goal:

My fear for the yard under your system (and my fear *for* your system), is that beacause there are not a very convenient number of yards in a mile, indeed, there are not even a whole number of yards in a 60,000 inch mile, either the yard gets chucked or the mile is changed to not equal 60,000 inches, and in which case, this new system is, if I may put it crudely, screwed. This is just one instance of my fear for your system and *our* system- the natural "Imperial" or more accurately, customary system. We may end up, I fear, taking a step backwards.


The Indestructable Inch?

I must say that I don't know if the inch is undefeatable, but the foot, however, is. In practically every system of measure that I can recall, there has been a foot measure, but how it is divided differs- 12, 4&16, all of these together, or, as in the Japanese system, 10. I personally find that 16ths of a foot are not very practical- 12ths are better.

Well, my attempts to construct a more rationalised ratio-wise customary system are probably pointless, but regardless, that is *my* pet project (even though it is completely without worth). What do you think of it anyway? I think that the dram (and ounce) should be a simple and even number of grains, as the grain is of a very useful size, but due to it being a ridiculous number to the ounce and dram, is destined to die out, and thus, perhaps desreasing the strength and vigour of our system, and aiding the cause of the general rundown of mankind.


I have absolutely no idea what the general point of this post of mine is. Well, I hope you got something out of this ramble, anyway.

Hello again Bryan,

I am very interested about what you said about
not losing yard.

I don't think of anything pound-inch as cast in
concrete. Units evolve according to people's
experience of them and as state force intervenes.

In an evolutionary situation one must sometimes
instead of "what do I like?" ask "what is apt to be most durable?"

WHAT FORM OF MILE IS MOST LIKELY TO ENDURE AND STILL BE HERE 100 OR 1000 years from now?

In my opinion a mile of 63,612 inches seems most durable. Of course that is 1767 yards.
But what we now have is very close to this. (only 7
yards different). One should not try to be too
precise in considering longterm.

Andrew suggested the speed of light could be
a flat 600 million. I tried that out and it
seems to have some advantages. Paul's version
does not have that feature.

Having light go 600 million i/t indeed creates a temptation to define mile as 60 thousand inch.
But it does not necessitate it. These are
separate issues. I like 600 million for speed of
light but do not care so much about how many inches
are in a mile!

Right now mile is 63,360 inch. It could stay
that way forever and would be fine with me. It is all evolution like language itself. People do what they like.

In a thousand years one might have miles (about 1616 meters long) but the meter be forgotten.
One might have miles (about 63,600 inch long) but the
inch be forgotten. How then to say how long the mile
is, without going back to old forgotten meters or old forgotten inches.

Easy. It is E38 of the natural length built into all light and gravity. That makes it a definite length. So who needs to know what other shorter units are used to describe it? There will be some but we cannot easily guess what they might be or what they might be called.
For your sake I hope one is the yard but I have no way to guess.

But the mile, E38 of natural length unit, is a good bet. It has been here for well over 2000 years already.

Kilometer looks to me kind of sick in longterm.

{I think that the dram (and ounce) should be a simple and even number of grains, as the grain is of a very useful size, but due to it being a ridiculous number to the ounce and dram}

The main reason for that wierd number is that the grain is not an Avoirdupois unit. It is a Troy weight that was used to define the Avoirdupois pound.

Thanks Mike, but I already knew that :-) However, I believe that it may be desirable to change the size of the av. pound in order to make the ounce and dram whole numbers of gain.

The avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains which equals 437.3 grains per ounce and 27.34375 to the dram. I prepose changing the dram to be either 27, 27.25 or 28 grains (6912, 6976 and 7168 grains per pound respectively). I favour (in theory) a 27 or 27½ grain dram.

Hi Leonard,

if I may re-iterate what I said in another thread :
If we pro-metric claim that the metric system will outlast the imperial system, then it is solely our own perception and opinion, there's nothing axiomatic about it. If you consider our opinions as "spam", well I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.

Apart from that, considering that the metric system took the world by storm and replaced the respective customary units, including imperial in some cases (eg Australia and Canada), the claim that metric will outlast imperial is not too far-fetched.

The sentiment that all those countries' governments did the conversion against the will of the public I find far more far-fetched. Assuming that only the UK and the US have a working democracy could be considered arrogant...

Cheers,
Ralf

In every country in which the metric system is now in general use it has been imposed by force. In no case did it come into use naturally - and that includes France, its country of origin. Furthermore, I do not believe that the government of any country has ever introduced or attempted to introduce the metric system except against the wishes of a majority of its people. This is true of all the countries and cases of which I have definite knowledge (most especially the UK). Kindly either admit the truth of this or provide historical counter-examples.

what to do about Ralf?
I have made my view clear that unsubstantiated opinion
is not INTERESTING and doesn't advance the discussion

I have indicated where I think there is a BURDEN OF PROOF on the pro-metric side.

Prime example of these naive people: A poster Jon
says "Hey why care about feet cause Imperial is
going to die out anyway!" And he gives no reasons, just takes death of Imperial as axiomatic and bases
what he has to say on it.

Then Ralf comes along and says "Well these are just
our (unsubstantiated) pro-metric opinions. If you
are PERSUADED by them that is your look-out." He said this in one post.

He doesn't get it. I object because naive unsubstantiated opinions are not only unpersuasive but worse than that they are NOT ENTERTAINING. If pro-metrics would examine their assumptions, learn a little, and try to justify with reasons then they would entertain us. But sheer opinion just takes up board-space.

Do you think you might teach Ralf to give reasons
(make attempts at justification, understand idea of burden of proof).

Like, resolved: the newton can reasonably be expected to outlast the pound-force as a vernacular measure of force. Give your arguments for. Historical precedent, trends, current mass behavior, scientific detail if relevant.

I have tried and cannot get idea of reasoned discussion across to him (no disrespect to his
intelligence, just failure to communicate a seemingly unfamiliar idea.)

Leonard:

yes, what to do about me ?
As you may recall, the name of this forum is "Metric vs. Imperial, the great debate".
What we're talking about here are probabilities. Probabilities are subject to a lot of variables which inevitably rely on personal perception when trying to estimate those probabilities.
When I look at the world, being to the vast majority metric and the UK going (officially) going metric and the US as well, the probability of metric outlasting imperial seems (to me) pretty high.

You yourself seem to be pretty convinced that your self-concocted system (or some variation of it) will overtake metric. What is your PROOF behind that ? That the public will realize how beautiful Maxwell's equations become because they are symmetric ? I wait for the day that the broad public will be able to appreciate the beauty of Maxwell's equations at all.

If you look for someone padding your back for your system, maybe this is not the right forum. You say you're "puncturing the metric balloon", I haven't felt a pinch yet...

Paul:
The assumption that ALL governments of the world are acting against the will of the people that elected them, and only the US and the UK governments the properly working ones, I find equally as unlikely...

Ralf

We do not regard the UK as "democratic" on metric/imperial policy; the USA more so.

When did I ever claim that the UK and US governments abide by the will of their people? Haven't I been pointing out repeatedly how they DON'T? No government anywhere consistently abides by the will of the people, because the government is NOT the people. This should not surprise us, because the interests of the politicians are seldom identical to the interests of their constituents.

Governments all over the world have sought to impose the metric system on an unwilling public. Compulsion has been employed in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, France, etc, etc. I do not know of ANY country in which the metric system has come into general use except through laws banning the free use of the customary units. I do not even know of ANY country in which the metric system was introduced following a referendum in its favour. If you know of any contrary examples, please specify.

Well, does that mean that democracy doesn't work at all ?
Or is the metric system in some way special so that all governments tend to disregard democracy when introducing it ?
I guess your point is that the metric system is too weak so that it has to be introduced by compulsion, but what is the reason that every country wanted to introduce metric ? Blaming it on some kind of unknown "pressure groups" sounds a lot like the Illuminati to me, a world-wide network imposing their evil plan on the public.
The fact that the conversion to metric was always accompanied with a law rather suggests to me the apparent need for uniformity in trade, something (in my view) rightfully not subject to a democratic decision.

Ralf

Pretty good response Ralf,
what I want to convey is this:
I am not interested in hearing the same
pro-metric opinions repeated again and again
I want to hear REASONS. Some justification.
Some scrap of substantiation. This will make
it more entertaining and interesting and MAYBE
more persuasive!!! It is possible, just barely
possible, that you could persuade me of your idea
of probabilities. So please TRY!

If you just repeat that you think metric is more probable to prevail it does nothing for me. It does not persuade. It does not amuse or interest.

So try to make the discussion more interesting,
please.

NOW TO THIS I MUST ADD THAT YOU ALREADY DO THIS
to some extent. You offer more reasoning than
many other people. Bravo. I am just asking for
even more. ALSO I MUST ADD THAT I am sometimes
at fault for simply saying something without
giving reasons and I also could do better. Touche. But anyway that is the message. You are smart so more
analysis and data would make you a more formidable and interesting person to discuss with.

Also please don't act dumb, sometimes you seem to ask questions that I cannot believe you don't already know the answer to.

IN THIS POST YOU SEEM PURPOSEFULLY TO BE ACTING DUMB AGAIN.

As you know I use several different systems to compare with metric. You talk as if it was one system. The success and prospects do not depend on popular appreciation of Maxwell's equations.

HERE ARE SOME POINTS WHERE YOU COULD RESPOND

1.Pound-inch:
I've participated with others in exhibiting pound-inch because it has potential as an alternative system in college physics. I have demonstrated this. I didn't just claim it. I got several people including you involved in test driving and you failed, I believe, to show that metric is as clean and quick as pound inch in basic problems involving gravity.

2. Alternatives in education:
I have argued often that it is to students' benefit to learn to work in more than one system and to avoid getting the idea that there is one right system. I talked about units sophistication. I didn't just state my opinion that it is good, I argued for it and gave examples of its lack.

3.History and future probabilities:
You might admit that the discussion is about persistance of individual units.
Various metric systems have in my lifetime died and been trashed. Some metric units have died and been forgotten. Some have survived.
Units do not die as whole systems. Some die, some survive and the survivors are re-combined into new systems.
We do not have a battle between "Metric" and "Imperial". Titles of things (including message
board forums) oversimplify.

There is not one "Metric" system. It is constantly being reformulated (dynes and ergs died, meter survived, dynes per sq. cm and bar were replaced by newton per sq. m or pascal, the EM units completely redone etc).
There is not one "Imperial" system. Everybody can see it in a variety of versions and reformulate it as they please. WHAT MATTERS IS THE CONTINUED LIFE OF CERTAIN UNITS. They can always be reformulated into some system. A system is just a numerical arrangement.
The question is about persistence of pound and inch and various multiples of inches like foot and yard.

SO PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS WHY YOU EXPECT NEWTON TO BE MORE DURABLE THAN POUND AS MEASURE OF FORCE.

It was dyne until about 1960 and newton had never been heard of, but dyne died. In old handbooks I cannot even find newton, or pascal for that matter.

It has been pound since before year one AD and pound kept on in 1960 when dyne died. Pound seems very durable, no?

4.Very longterm:

Do you have any concept of very longterm probabilities or prospects for systems of units? I do. I think they are influenced by trends I can see in science. To base units on exact fund. const. (which are the main conversion factors in nature) and the trend to prefer powers of thousand. And the attraction to natural (non-metric) units that has affected quite a lot of physicists and astronomers. I think directions in science have a very long term effect on directions in units. DO YOU WANT TO DENY THIS?

Please try to answer pointwise and don't just
pretend not to understand.

L

or Leonard:

yes, what to do about me ?
As you may recall, the name of this forum is "Metric vs. Imperial, the great debate".
What we're talking about here are probabilities. Probabilities are subject to a lot of variables which inevitably rely on personal perception when trying to estimate those probabilities.
When I look at the world, being to the vast majority metric and the UK going (officially) going metric and the US as well, the probability of metric outlasting imperial seems (to me) pretty high.

You yourself seem to be pretty convinced that your self-concocted system (or some variation of it) will overtake metric. What is your PROOF behind that ? That the public will realize how beautiful Maxwell's equations become because they are symmetric ? I wait for the day that the broad public will be able to appreciate the beauty of Maxwell's equations at all.

If you look for someone padding your back for your system, maybe this is not the right forum. You say you're "puncturing the metric balloon", I haven't felt a pinch yet...

Paul:
The assumption that ALL governments of the world are acting against the will of the people that elected them, and only the US and the UK governments the properly working ones, I find equally as unlikely...

Ralf

If it sometimes rains does it follow that it's never sunny? Of course not.

If governments sometimes act contrary to the wishes of the public does it follow that they never act in accordance with the wishes of the public? Of course not.

Metrification is one of the areas in which governments around the world have systematically defied the wishes of their people. Since you have not even attempted to give any counter-examples I hope you now accept the truth of this statement. It is interesting to speculate why this should have been the case. I confess that I do not have a fully comprehensive answer.

It would appear that governments have almost universally believed that they had something to gain by the imposition of a metric system - and at the same time that metric would never come about without state coercion. What exactly they expected to gain is not clear.

The idea that it was for the benefit of domestic or international trade I find implausible. Some governments might have been moved by such a (misguided) view, but surely not all. When one looks at other trade policies over the last two hundred years (the period over which governments have been pushing metrication), or even at the present time, one sees a wide variety of conflicting ideas. Most of the time most governments seem to have gone out of their way to place diverse obstacles in the path of trade; but there has been no real consistency - except in this matter of compulsory metrification, where it looks rather as if the only question has been how far it was politically viable to go at any given time.

Certainly the idea that governments have been so enamoured of the principle of uniformity in trade is refuted by the rafts of petty and inconsistent regulations that every country (or, latterly, trading bloc) has insisted upon introducing and enforcing against foreign imports. Why should domestic weights and measures (the very least of the problems of international trade) have been singled out for special treatment?

I incline to the opinion that something about the pseudo-rationality of metric systems appeals to the bureaucratic mind (in every country) - and that it is from the bureaucracy, and in line with the bureacratic appetite for compulsion, that most of the pressure for metrification has come. This has the advantage of explaining the universality of the phenomenon by means of the universality of human nature.

the last paragraph has a ring of truth
I've wondered the same thing and often
come to similar conclusions.
it is a simple explanation (occam-like)
perhaps the simplest. perhaps to some extent
testable if historians would go back and
examine minutiae.
interesting analysis. much appreciated

L

Paul's last paragraph hit the nail on the head; I've been trying to put those thoughts into words and Paul's done it for me.

By the way, I did not consider Ralf's earlier opsts as spamming. The only spammer we've had to date was APP.

The idea that countries go metric just to satisfy the beaurocratic mind is absurd.

Elected politicians are hardly likely to undertake an unpopular (if it is so) and thus potentially vote losing programme of change for trivial reasons such as this.

There is nothing pseudo-rational about the metric system. Some people only say that because they don't like admitting the virtues of the system, as it doesn't suite their political views.

Couldn't have said it any better, Pip !

What strange world do you and Conrad inhabit? Are you really so ignorant of the power of the bureaucracy? Have you never watched "Yes, Minister"? Don't you realise that if elected politicians are all pushed into the same policies by their bureaucrats the unpopularity of those policies hardly matters - because there's no way the public can effectively vote against them?

I notice also that you have no alternative explanation for the phenomenon. You just don't want to face up to the fact that your idols have feet of clay.

My explanation works even if you replace "pseudo-rationality" with "nature" (... something about the nature of metric systems appeals to the bureacratic mind ...), so your objection misses the point as well as the truth.

It has been proved many times over (both theoretically and in practice) that central planning (which is the genus to which compulsory metrification belongs) is not rational science but pseudo-rational scientism. That is, it pretends to be scientific and rational, but in fact is not. Central planning invariably operates on the basis of less information than the free market and therefore cannot but tend to reduce the efficiency of the economy by distorting it away from the voluntary Pareto optimum. It is not rational to attempt to increase happiness by forcing people to do things that make them unhappy.

It is astonishing how ignorant of basic economics - and even of the very metric systems they endorse - metric fanatics almost invariably show themselves to be. To give a direct example, you yourself, Ralf, did not realise that the hour is not a metric unit, and that the kilometre per hour is therefore not metric but a bastard unit, and admitted that you had never even heard of the kilogramme force, even though that is the very basis of measurement of the metric scales you want shops to be compelled to use.

Paul Birch wrote: "Ralf admitted that he had never even heard of the kilogramme force, even though that is the very basis of measurement of the metric scales he wants shops to be compelled to use."

So what? There are millions of Americans and Britons that have never heard of the pound force, even though that is the very basis of measurement of the pound scales that you want shops to keep on using.

For everyday purposes the pound has always been a unit of weight as well as a unit of mass. The pound force is a term used in engineering when pound alone might be ambiguous. So those millions of ordinary people have always understood well enough what they were doing - which was using their own customary units in the customary way - not trying to impose some allegedly rational system upon the rest of the world.

This contrasts with SI in which the kilogram, kg, is NEVER to be used as a unit of force, in which kgf is deprecated, and the correct unit is the Newton; so spring balances ought logically to be calibrated in Newtons, or failing that in kgf; calibrating them in kg is plain wrong.

You and Ralf are demanding the compulsory introduction of a system you arrogantly and belligerently claim to be "rational", but which you do not even adequately understand yourselves. This is quite different from - indeed the very opposite of - people who simply want the freedom to use their traditional weights and measures the traditional way without being turned into criminals.

Nothing is "rational" in isolation. "Rational" can only mean that such and such a course of action is best calculated to bring about such and such an end.

So now I challenge you both:

Precisely what end is best brought about through the use of which metric system in what fashion?

If you cannot answer that question you are not being rational in your support of metrification, however firmly you may wish to believe otherwise.

Re:
"Governments all over the world have sought to impose the metric system on an unwilling public. Compulsion has been employed in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, France, etc, etc. I do not know of ANY country in which the metric system has come into general use except through laws banning the free use of the customary units. I do not even know of ANY country in which the metric system was introduced following a referendum in its favour. If you know of any contrary examples, please specify."

I have been in touch with some people I know who were living in Australia at the time they changed over. Their recollections are that there was very little opposition to the change and it was conducted in an atmosphere of general enthusiasm.

I've also heard from someone who lived in South Africa at the time they changed. Admittedly it was at the height of apartheid regime, but ant-aparthied groups co-operated on that particular issue. Again there wasn't any particlarly strong feeling against it from ordinary people.

Now admittedly this evidence is anecdotal and they didn't hold referenda, but you must give some credit for the fact, in the Australian case at least, that the governments of the day freely were elected representatives.

On the point about law and compulsion, the fact is that a radical change of this sort can only be achieved by compulsion at least in some areas, and by changes to legislation. This would be true if the change were going the other way, i.e. from metric to something else.

I can assure you that metrification in Australia, as in every other country, WAS imposed by force, contrary to the wishes of a very large number (almost certainly the majority) of Australians. There was no referendum and no freedom on the part of individuals to opt out. Therefore my statement stands absolutely. I'm afraid I don't believe the sort of Australians you'd be likely to know would be remotely representative of ordinary people - and I flatly don't believe their/your claim that there was "very little opposition". I myself have heard from many Australians who say that there was (and still is) a great deal of vocal opposition - which the statists overrode with their usual threats and arrogance. I have less knowledge of the personal opinions of South Africans, but it is certain that there was no referendum and no freedom to opt out.

What boots it if "the governments of the day freely were elected representatives"? Compulsion is compulsion from whatever source. Compulsory metrification is despicable whoever is behind it.

Understand this: compulsory metrification would be thoroughly wrong EVEN IF favoured in a referendum - a majority has no right to coerce a minority. However, in reality, governments have not even obtained such limited democratic consent, even where it would be appropriate and possibly legitimate (such as signage on publicly owned highways, for example), let alone honoured the freedom of choice of individual citizens.

If such changes can only be introduced by compulsion then they are EVIL - no softer word will do. There is not the slightest honest reason why individuals cannot be left free to choose for themselves. I am utterly disgusted by those who purport to belong to the human race yet so blatantly refuse to respect the rights and liberties of others.

No one here wants to stop you using metric, or any other units that take your fancy. Why will you not grant the like liberty to others?

Paul Birch

A few points:

1. Why should the Australian people you know be any more representative than the people I know.

2. If their was no referendum how can you be so dogmatic about the extent of the opposition.

At least I was honest enough to qualify the evidence I was offering and tried to be fair.

You use extreme language that I simply don't understand and at times I find offensive.

I will not continue this conversation any further.

I made no claim that the Australians I know are representative of the general population. I have no need to make such a claim. All I need is the clear fact that metrification was imposed by force against the wishes of a substantial number of Australians and without even the benefit of a referendum. Nor did I make any dogmatic claim as to the extent of the opposition, though I would be greatly astonished if a majority could be shown to have been in favour of the system's coercive imposition. But it is true that I do not believe that those Australians you claim to know can be considered representative of the Australian public.

If you find my language offensive I offer no apology. I mean exactly what I say. If you cannot understand it - though I thought my meaning obvious enough - ask for clarification.

I said: No one here wants to stop you using metric, or any other units that take your fancy. I asked: Why will you not grant the like liberty to others? Now what is extreme or hard to understand about that?

Paul Birch wrote: "Metrification in Australia was imposed by force, contrary to the wishes of a very large number (almost certainly the majority) of Australians."

Dear Paul, you are the one that always wants good arguments and proof. You also want people (no, no, sorry, not everyone, just the *pro-metric people*) to be objective. Just read your post again and think about what you wrote. I'll help you a bit: "almost certainly the majority", "very large number",... That smacks of subjectivity.

Paul, there has never been a referendum, so you have absolutely no idea how many people were in favour and how many were against.

If the imperial system would have been used by the majority of the world population, I would not have objected to a compulsory "imperialisation" of the metric system at the time when I lived in Belgium.
Why not? Because my outlook on life is not limited to the country I live in, I'm a world citizen.

If I would have grown up with the imperial system and if I'd feel uncomfortable with the metric system, I would still be in favour of complete metrication. Metrication is in the public interest, not in one's personal interest.

That's what you, pro-imperial people, always do: letting prevail your own personal interest.

Of Australians, known to me or identified as such, whose responses I have seen, not one, to the best of my recollection, has been in favour of compulsory metrification. That is evidence of a substantial proportion of Australians not being in favour of it.

It is also an almost universal fact of human nature, attested in numerous studies, that people generally do not favour radical and compulsory changes of this sort. They would rather stick to what they know or are familiar with. So there is strong reason to believe that had there been a free referendum in any of the countries in which metric has been compulsorily introduced the majority would have voted against it. Additional evidence comes from the fact that no referenda were actually permitted; had those governments believed they could win a referendum some at least would probably have held one, for the sake of democratic legitimacy.

You may wish to consider yourself a world citizen - whatever that may mean. I don't. I'm not. I'm British. That statist nonsense of yours sounds like slavery to me - and anyone who seeks to enslave me is my enemy. What is this so-called public interest of yours, if not the sum of the private interests of the individual persons who together make up that public? Or you another of those totalitarians who worship the state above the people and the people above persons?

{I said: No one here wants to stop you using metric, or any other units that take your fancy. I asked: Why will you not grant the like liberty to others? Now what is extreme or hard to understand about that?}

I think he has trouble with the word "liberty."

{Why not? Because my outlook on life is not limited to the country I live in, I'm a world citizen.}

There is no such thing as "a world citizen."

It wasn't the last paragraph or sentence I had difficulty with nor do I have any problems with the word liberty.

It was the use of the word evil I didn't like as well as the general tone of your response. I said I didn't understand it because it seems totally out of proportion to the matter we are discussing.

However I will now answer your question.

The compulsion I referred to applies only in a limited context to do with trade and the retail sector in particular. The regulations governing the use of particular units are perfectly normal, it was only the choice of allowable units that changed as a result of the UK and other countries changing over to metric.

None of this has any bearing on what people do personally at home or any situation not subject weights and measures legislation. Ordinary people can think, speak and work in whatever units they choose, as indeed they do. Pro-imperial folk are often boasting about the way many young supposedly metric educated people still engage those customary units.

Although I am pro-metric and I am prepared to promote it and encourage its use I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything against their will. I am not that type of person, and it shouldn't be assumed that all pro-metrics are so just because they support the legal use of the metric system and the idea of all countries formerly adopting it.

Furthermore the fact that a country formerly goes metric doesn't kill of the older units. They are as you say part of our culture and won't be totally forgotten. They will probably live on in everyday speech, like 'give them an inch and they will take a yard', and so on. As long as there is still a demand for them manufacturers will still produce domestic measuring equipment in dual units, as there are no laws forbidding them, nor should there be.

It wasn't the last paragraph or sentence I had difficulty with nor do I have any problems with the word liberty.

It was the use of the word evil I didn't like as well as the general tone of your response. I said I didn't understand it because it seems totally out of proportion to the matter we are discussing.

However I will now answer your question.

The compulsion I referred to applies only in a limited context to do with trade and the retail sector in particular. The regulations governing the use of particular units are perfectly normal, it was only the choice of allowable units that changed as a result of the UK and other countries changing over to metric.

None of this has any bearing on what people do personally at home or any situation not subject weights and measures legislation. Ordinary people can think, speak and work in whatever units they choose, as indeed they do. Pro-imperial folk are often boasting about the way many young supposedly metric educated people still engage those customary units.

Although I am pro-metric and I am prepared to promote it and encourage its use I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything against their will. I am not that type of person, and it shouldn't be assumed that all pro-metrics are so just because they support the legal use of the metric system and the idea of all countries formerly adopting it.

Furthermore the fact that a country formerly goes metric doesn't kill of the older units. They are as you say part of our culture and won't be totally forgotten. They will probably live on in everyday speech, like 'give them an inch and they will take a yard', and so on. As long as there is still a demand for them manufacturers will still produce domestic measuring equipment in dual units, as there are no laws forbidding them, nor should there be.

If you don't "have any problems with the word liberty" then please answer my question: why will you not grant me the liberty of using traditional British units with consenting others?

I use the word evil for the simple reason that criminalising the use of traditional units in private transactions - which is precisely what the compulsory metrification you endorse is all about - is a thoroughly tyrannical, despicably invasive and utterly unnecessary measure.

I despise your hypocritical pretence that you "have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything against their will" when you (or those whose coercive activities you support) will not let me buy a five pound bag of potatoes and threaten anyone who dares sell me them with prosecution; and I reject your feeble excuse that "regulations governing the use of particular units [in the private retail sector] are perfectly normal", since in this country and throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, people used to be free to use whatever units they wanted (so long as they used honest measures). But even if such regulations were completely normal, as arbitrary power and despotic subjugation too often are in less happier lands, they would still be unjust, oppressive and barbaric - in short, evil.

there is the idea of government playing the
role of standardising and regularising what
has already become practice in people's
voluntary associations (in the civil society)

if one does not have the concept of the
civil society then a kind of "all-or-nothing"
image of the role of government seems to emerge
and some of us may feel forced to choose between
complete control by state and no control at all

if there is a vital and healthy civil society
with which choices about culture and language can reside
then I personally am not worried by the state taking
the role of "seconding" or confirming and standardizing
practices which are already voluntary and common
(all the words are subject to debate and interpretation
being vague and approximate after the fashion of words)

this said, I must defer to British posters on anything that
relates to politics here since these are UK issues
in which you have the most immediate interest

Pip says: "give them an inch and they will take a yard"

The saying is actually "give them an inch and they take a mile" - as 'sung' in the Spice Girls' song "I'll give you everything" (I think it was that one).

It's not just "said" as "part of the language" though - go up to anyone with your two fore-fingers 10 inches apart and ask someone how far a part your fingers are.

Sorry, I just realised, am I patronizing here or stating the obvious?



P.S. Totally off topic - I heard the word "route" pronounced like "rout" by an american the other day - I never fail to laugh at that one!!!

root
I get my kix on root sixTsix
we are all part gaul
and ought to take pride
in trying to say "route" right
now and then

if that American said rout
then he is a lout

In my personal opinion, world civilisation and culture will in fact be *damaged* by metrification and not helped at all.

"Furthermore the fact that a country formerly goes metric doesn't kill of the older units."

Yes, it does. Look at Europe- sure, they may talk of "livres" but that is about it. We are being deprived here, of our culture and our history. Surely, losing contact with your history is more likely to "start another war". I'ld say that denying people freedom, and denying people their history is a very good way of causing what the EU and its supporters claim to not want and claim the EU protects us from.


"They are as you say part of our culture and won't be totally forgotten."

I'm sure people in France can look in a book to find out the definition of these "archaic" units, but to be fair, that is not culture living on- Is the Assyrio-Chaldean culture still alive because I can read about it in a book?


"They will probably live on in everyday speech, like 'give them an inch and they will take a yard', and so on."

Only in a very very limited way. Look to Europe and you will see remnants of the old system in speech and in life, but the culture is not "living on".
Look at this country and at its colourful pre-decimal vocabulary. Since decimalisation, even phrases that could have been "translated", as it were, to a decimal currency were not, and as such, language and culture are diminished, as nothing really adequately replaced that part of this nation. Even expressions that are not really currency related at all have died out to be replaced with nothing much- our cultural pool is diminishing for no reason. In fact the only reason that I can divine, is that it helps control people and keep them subservient to the state.


"As long as there is still a demand for them manufacturers will still produce domestic measuring equipment in dual units, as there are no laws forbidding them, nor should there be"

Um, sorry, but you really are deluded aren't you?

would be damaged not necessarily will be
I think it is not just a personal opinion
I think reasons can be given
Like the eradication of roman units and links to history
Like the simple-mindedness one sees in exclusively
metric-trained technical people who seem to think
there is just one right system
Like the setting of a huge parkinglot full of concrete,
and forclosing chances for something better emerging.
Like the human hand and arm and its sizes and
the human sense of what makes good language being
hurt by it.
I have to go shop for food (we have a wonderful
non-supermarket produce store where vedge is much much
better than at safeway) and don't have time to
formulate some of the reasons in a more objective way.
Will try later maybe, unless others fill in the reasons. But probably it would damage civilization and you are right.

Temporarily at least those "mock metric" units are not
being called mock metric (which is just not a good enough name for them). The provisional name (at the
planck.com webpage) is Bryan Units

www.planck.com/mockmetric.htm

I didn't change the filename, just the title on the page.
the reason is that the 10-bone or roughly 6 inch bryan which you cube to get the gallon is an important and
representative unit in the set and so gives a good
convenient handle on it.

Hey, by gawd, Ma! I'm provisionally immortal! Hurray!

Always look on the bright side, Bryan!

A second attempt to answer your question.

There is nothing preventing you from going to your grocer and asking for 5lb of potatoes. The law since Jan 2000 now requires the grocer to weigh the equivalent in kg and make that visible to you as the customer. So what? You get what you wanted the greengrocer profits from the transaction just the same.

Laws like these are necessary in modern society. They are there to ensure traders use the same units in the same market place for the benefit of the consumer so they can compare prices more easily. They also enable better regulation of the equipment used by traders, again in the interest of the consumer.

A proliferation of different measures in the market place would cause utter chaos and the customer would be ripped off right left and centre. Still if thats the kind of world you want to live in thats up to you but don't try and ram it down my throat.

I don't know how far back in time you were going with your "everybody can do as they like" Anglo-Saxon world but those British imperial measures you are so fond of were legally enforced back in the 19th century. Publicans are equally required by law still today to sell beer in pints, if any of them started selling in litres they too would risk being fined for it. It is thoroughly dishonest to pretend that the new laws enforcing metric are a newly invented invasive tyranny.

I equally resent your hypocracy in pretending to defend my freedon to use the metric system when you advocate a society in which such freedoms would be and are illusory. Freedom to choose does not exist in a world of dual measures. It just means we all have to engage both whether we like it or not.

Pip, The Imperial system was almost exactly the same system that was already used in Britain- a slight cleaning up took place.

{There is nothing preventing you from going to your grocer and asking for 5lb of potatoes. The law since Jan 2000 now requires the grocer to weigh the equivalent in kg and make that visible to you as the customer. So what? You get what you wanted the greengrocer profits from the transaction just the same.}

But he asked for 5 lbs! The equivalent in kg is irrelevant because kilograms never entered into the transaction.

{Publicans are equally required by law still today to sell beer in pints, if any of them started selling in litres they too would risk being fined for it.}

Why? If the customer asks for a liter, it's the barman's duty to give him a liter (provided he has a liter glass available). The State has no authority to say otherwise.

{I equally resent your hypocracy in pretending to defend my freedon to use the metric system when you advocate a society in which such freedoms would be and are illusory. Freedom to choose does not exist in a world of dual measures. It just means we all have to engage both whether we like it or not.}

It works in the U.S. Is there some kind of magic barrier to freedom on your side of the atlantic?

pip wrote:

"There is nothing preventing you from going to your grocer and asking him for 5lb. of potatoes. The law since Jan 2000 now requires the grocer to weigh the equivalent in kg...So what?"

This 'so what?' dictum of pip could be greatly extended. For example: