I have determined that, when one side of any issue is generally made up of people that are rational and tolerant, while the other side is paranoid and routinely uses personal attacks and slander to make their point, that the former is always right.

This is how I became anti-fluoridation and a sceptic of the global warming hypothesis. Discovery of these shook my faith in scientists; it seems that having a high intelligence does not guarantee the ability to properly use that intelligence.

It is also why I am anti-metric generally. It is plainly obvious from this board that the pro-metric side fully meets this description of an irrational belief.

This is another issue I feel disgust with scientists on - though I would never insist that scientists do not use metric, I do not like the pro-metric propaganda believed by nearly all of them. I know, for instance, that school and college science classes generally forbid students from doing calculation in English, except for conversion into, and out of, metric; this is apparently to indocrinate a belief that English is unusable for calculations. In fact there is no necessary reason why the English system is not as suitable as metric for any purpose.

I myself do think in metric, as scientists do, when thinking about matters on the very small or very large scale. But, in more familiar territory, it is harder to do.

I will admit that a national feeling plays a part in my thinking on measurement, and I can't help but think it down right un-American to convert to metric where English has always been used before. Hence, it is painful for me to read old geolgical materials and realise that all the geological sciences consistenly 'spoke English' into the 1960s (and no doubt happily), but are now as doctrinaire-metric as chemistry.

I know that this message probably seemed rather weird to you, but I want to express what I have been thinking for a long time of these matters.

Andrew Usher

<<
sceptic of the global warming hypothesis.
>>
Are you a scientist, Andrew? If not, on what do you base your beliefs?


<<
it seems that having a high intelligence does not guarantee the ability to properly use that intelligence.
>>
That one is very true!!


<<
I know, for instance, that school and college science classes generally forbid students from doing calculation in English, except for conversion into, and out of, metric;
>>
That is not necessarily true, at least in the US. I don't know which country you live in, though. In the US, most engineering students must do a good deal of calculation in English units.

<<
sceptic of the global warming hypothesis.
>>
Are you a scientist, Andrew? If not, on what do you base your beliefs?


<<
it seems that having a high intelligence does not guarantee the ability to properly use that intelligence.
>>
That one is very true!!


<<
I know, for instance, that school and college science classes generally forbid students from doing calculation in English, except for conversion into, and out of, metric;
>>
That is not necessarily true, at least in the US. I don't know which country you live in, though. In the US, most engineering students must do a good deal of calculation in English units.

Andrew

I think you would be making a big mistake taking the pro-metric people on this board as representative of the pro-metric side generally (The total number of sensible posters of both sides on here is only about 10). It is true there are a few (possibly all one person) nutters who post here with irrational pro-metric arguments, but these are most likely 15 year old kids with nothing better to do than wind people up.

You use the words rational and tolerant, which to me perfectly describe the pro-metric side, not the pro-imperial. The problem is that we are too rational and tolerant, so we don't devote our lives to fighting such a relatively unimportant cause. All the hysteria, anger etc comes from the imperial side.

For irrational and intolerant behaviour, look no further than the actions of Mr Tony Bennett.

"You use the words rational and tolerant, which to me perfectly describe the pro-metric side, not the pro-imperial."

I see the opposite. But I do not tar every pro-met with the same brush.

"The problem is that we are too rational and tolerant, so we don't devote our lives to fighting such a..."

Whan the state is firmly on the pro-met side you don't need to fight anything. In the main the state is doing your fight for you while pro-imps see more and more of their system ebbing away though the inhuman machinery of beurocracy.

And don't mention 'roads' - they just haven't got the guts to do somethnig so unpopular and so expensive - yet.

RationalityJuly 27 2005 at 5:40 AM Andrew Usher

I have determined that, when one side of any issue is generally made up of people that are rational and tolerant, while the other side is paranoid and routinely uses personal attacks and slander to make their point, that the former is always right.

I will admit that a national feeling plays a part in my thinking on measurement, and I can't help
but think it down right un-American to convert to metric where English has always been used
before.


metre
The question, who is rational, tolerant, or paranoid, is not as simple as you think. As one man
said it long ago, “reason is the handmaiden of faith”. Using that profound insight, your first sentence in the
last paragraph of your post explains why ‘you’ think metric proponents are irrational. Console yourself with
the fact that this is part and parcel of the human condition.
The following examples are perfect illustrations of that wise man’s insight.


Tony Bennett
REPLY: A load of [expletive deleted]. For whatever reason - TV, calculators or metric/decimalisation
or other reasons, children's abilty to reckon in their heads has declined in the last 4 decades –
FACT. (Just realised that 1965 was the year Harold Wilson said we should go metric)
I have simply never said that 'compulsion is only exercised by the EC'. On the contrary, I have laboured
to point out the 'compulsion mindset' of people like Lord Howe and the two-and-a-half men and a dog
who run UKMA.

<<<And don't mention 'roads' - they just haven't got the guts to do somethnig so unpopular and so expensive - yet>>>

So by not doing anything about it, they are on *your* side are they not?

When you look at the way metrication has been done in other countries, you can hardly say the state is firmly on the pro-metric side.

I'll go and buy a gallon of petrol then....

"I'll go and buy a gallon of petrol then...."

Where and how?

Dan

Firstly have a look at Tony's posts about a fish shop that pretends to be a "private members club"

I'm aware of a real UK private members club (ie owned by its members) that sells diesel by gallons in quantities up to 100 litres. Totally legally (as long as you pay your membership fees!)

However their bulk sales are in litres (by choice). As far as I am aware, they deliberately chose to use litres for the bulk sales side & will replace the gallon pump with something more modern & accurate (their quote - not mine!) when it reaches the end of its useful life.

So, in fairness, there is at least one pump in the UK that operates in gallons.

I'm sure that this fact will give certain posters here a nice warm feeling....

Some sad individuals might even go as far as writing to the Daily Telegraph & stating that "This is the fuel pump that filled the fishing boat that won World War II & defeated Metric Germany, thus proving that the Anglo-Saxon spirit understands measurement freedom. Britain will have an empire again as soon as we revert to Imperial!!!!!"

(that's meant to be sarcastic btw.........)

"However their bulk sales are in litres (by choice). As far as I am aware, they deliberately chose to use litres for the bulk sales side & will replace the gallon pump with something more modern & accurate (their quote - not mine!) when it reaches the end of its useful life."

I think you hit the nail on the head. They can do it as long as the old pump holds out. Being old, it may not be accurate and the amount dispensed may be off. But the day will come when it will break and there is no parts to fix it and a new one will be in litres only.

This reminds me of some of the discussions I read about scales. The government may not be pushing the small remainder to get rid of pound scales because they may have been assured by the UK weighing Federation and scale producers that the old scales will reach the end of their useful life by the 2010 deadline. Imperial or dual imperial/metric scales have been produced since before the year 2000.

In my opinion, most shops don't buy scales, they lease them. They have a contract that they pay a monthly fee, in which the company owning the scales agrees to service the scales during the life of the contract. To keep the cost of conversion to a minimum, leasing companies used dual scales in the pre-2000 era so that they could be set to pounds before the year 2000 and switched to kilograms after 01 Jan 2000 and never be set back. This was a clever means to save cost in having to have scales changed abruptly around the new year 2000.

When the lease expires, the leasing companies usually removes the scales. If the customer decides to renew the lease, the leasing company replaces the scales with newer ones. Thus the dual scales are replaced with metric only. Dual scales can then be upgraded or modified to metric only and either sold to businesses that don't lease but are in need of an inexpensive scale or leased out to another customer.

Through attrition the old pound scales or dual unit scales will vanish.

Does anyone know what the percentage of shops now have metric only scales, versus dual unit and pound only scales?

Bud: I explained how I could prejudge certain hypotheses in my inital message. That said, I have looked into some aspect of the global warming theory and am confident that the probablility of a catastrophe is basically zero.

In reference to your comment about students, note that I said _science_ classes, not engineering. But I believe that probably much of engineering has metrified, in instruction even if not in practice.

Andy: It is silly for you to defend the pro-metric side by dissociating it from the posters on this board, then say that the anti-metrics should be judged by Tony Bennett.

Steve: Absolutely right. They get away with seemingly being less extreme because the powers are on their side.

I see that no one commented on my final paragraphs; I gather that no one else on this board is really interested in science.

Andrew Usher

I'm interested in science but not at a measurement level - In fact I'm dead good at those pub quiz machines that give you the science option ;-)

--------

Andy: "When you look at the way metrication has been done in other countries, you can hardly say the state is firmly on the pro-metric side. "

Anonymous: "I'll go and buy a gallon of petrol then...."

Daniel (increasingly ignored) Jackson: "Where and how?"





Me: You haven't got a clue have you?
Can't you see what's being projected in that discussion?
Clue: "Sarcasm"

<<<Andy: It is silly for you to defend the pro-metric side by dissociating it from the posters on this board, then say that the anti-metrics should be judged by Tony Bennett.>>>

I take your point - but anyone who has been here for a while will understand. The big difference is this:

The extremist pro-metric posters you refer to are completely anonymous, and continually change identities. If you have any experience of internet messageboards you will know that these kind of people exist on every messageboard. You cannot take them seriously as representatives of one side.

Tony Bennett is not anonymous. He is a prominent public figure on the pro-imperial side.

<<The extremist pro-metric posters you refer to are completely anonymous>>

Not exclusively - recent remarks saying that Tony Bennet is a terrorist is testament to that.

<<
I know, for instance, that school and college science classes generally forbid students from doing calculation in English, except for conversion into, and out of, metric; this is apparently to indocrinate a belief that English is unusable for calculations. In fact there is no necessary reason why the English system is not as suitable as metric for any purpose.
>>

Are you talking about the UK or the US? Nowhere are students forbidden to do calculations in Imperial units - it is just that they are not taught how to do anything other than the most simple of calculations. For example, children are not taught how to add 3ft 6in to 4ft 8in. (How do you do it on a calculator anyway?). However they are expected to be able to solve problems such as "A car travels at 30miles per hour. How far wil it travel in 2 hours?".

In science and engineering calsses, problems are set using metric units, so the problem of conversion does not exst. Anyway, the final sentence is a gross over-simplification of the truth - for example, how much does a cubic yard of water weigh? (It is not unreasonable for an engineer to ask that question) That takes a bit of calculation. The equivalent problem in metric units is "How much does a cubic metre of water weigh?". THe answer is "approximately 1 tonne".

<<
I explained how I could prejudge certain hypotheses in my inital message. That said, I have looked into some aspect of the global warming theory and am confident that the probablility of a catastrophe is basically zero.
>>

No one said there was going to be a catastrophe, if you mean a sudden disaster. It is a slow process, and the costs are spread out and not easily quantifiable. May I ask where you did your research?

To everyone else, sorry for going off topic.

<<Are you a scientist, Andrew? If not, on what do you base your beliefs?>>

If Andrew was a scientist, he would have a hypothesis not a belief.

Martin:

I don't believe that 'nowhere are students forbidden to do calculations in imperial units'. Adding 3'6" to 4'8" is not hard at all; if there were any great demand for doing that, calculators would be programmed to do it - in fact, I have seen such calculators. And a cubic yard of water, I know, is about 1,700#; it is hardly surprising that this is easier in metric, of course.

Bud:

You again ignored my point about judging rationality. As far as my 'research', I haven't kept track of what materials I read.

Andrew Usher

Andrew, may I suggest that you base your scientific beliefs on reputable journals rather than articles from the popular press.
Sorry, what again was your point about rationality?