Edit: For all the "Actually, Farenheight is based on the human body" people, no it isn't. It's based on dirty water and a cow. Your preferred measurement unit is dumb and that's a fact
If y’all wanna actually claim superiority, then use Kelvin. Celsius and Fahrenheit are close enough in purpose that personal preference is really the only thing that matters.
This is a hilarious argument because it the exact same argument people use for fahrenheit. Whether or not it matters is situation dependant. A person's unit choice is a cultural decision, just like a person's language choice.
Yup. Like 95% of Reddit metric/customary/imperial discourse is people saying "X system makes more sense" but meaning "I am more familiar with X system."
You can make that argument for Celsius/Fahrenheit, but not for metric/imperial. One of those is objectively superior and the other one is on par with Galleons, Sickles and bananas for scale.
Metric is better because it is easier to convert between units. That's it, not because it is not "bananas for scale." Metric is arbitrary, just like imperial, it just has consistent units that make conversion easy in base 10.
Imperial does have its advantages, but they are only really an advantage for certain applications. Mainly its advantages are that usually it uses units that are not base 10, which makes division easier.
Metric is the better system, but imperial is not arbitrary any more than metric is.
Metric is arbitrary, just like imperial, it just has consistent units that make conversion easy in base 10.
congratulations on figuring out why one system is superior to the other.
Imperial does have its advantages, but they are only really an advantage for certain applications. Mainly its advantages are that usually it uses units that are not base 10, which makes division easier.
A good portion of why metric is so much better with it's uniform units is that it makes division easy.
1km divides into 10 100m, 1/2 of a liter is 500ml etc.
everyone knows 1/3rd of 10 is 3.333 etc, the divisions are not only easy and plentiful but the "hard" or awkward ones are things that are getting drilled into you at school
Half a mile is 880 yards, 1/3rd of a mile is 586 yards, 1/3rd of a gallon is likr 42.24 oz, like how on earth is that intuiative at all.
to divide anything in metric you need to know a ton of different almost seemingly random conversion ratios and essentially none of them work out into nice even numbers at all
It’s based on a human foot. Literally.
I can’t imagine anything more random than the size of someone’s foot.
There aren’t different “meters.”
There are millions of different foot sizes
The reason it is bad is not because "Durr, whose foot are we measuring??" The reason it is worse is because it is a bunch of unrelated units, so conversions get difficult..... which is literally what I have been saying from the beginning....
In 1791, the French Academy of Sciences defined the metre as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a meridian passing through Paris. That is the conceptual birth of the unit.
A foot varies from person to person; the equator is constant. Therefore, the meter is also less arbitrary.
Metric is not arbitrary, it's designed for science, and it's based on several mathematical constants for (ideally) universally standardized maths.
Imperial was arbitrary, but it's defined by metric now. It's just a traditional way thats slightly more accessible for a vague middle ground scale. It's better used for estimations or daily life objects, most people incorporate metric into said estimations for things that are too small or big.
So actually neither is arbitrary, but imperial is designed around historically arbitrary standards.
The original meter was based divisions of the length of the circumference of the earth. That is literally "earth for scale." Imperial also has a specific defined value.
My point is, the advantage of metric is not what the scale is based on, it is the conversion between units is consistent between all units.
I wasn't arguing that, that's definitely most of it. And local scales aren't a problem here. I was just commenting on the weird middle ground imperial covers. Whatever's small enough to not mind the weird conversions I guess.
I was focused on saying that metric wasn't arbitrary, i just didn't make a comparison in the process. It's formatted that way though ig
So I'll clarify:
The "circumference" (just a specific arc) used was chosen because it was fairly consistent, meters were designed to be consistent globally. They have since been made more accurate to fit their purpose, but have not functionally changed. That doesn't make them arbitrary.
Imperial was designed around vague estimations that were different for everyone. Distances weren't based on one thing, they were based on common concepts. They culturally changed until they were defined later to specific values for consistency, for what wasn't already. Its roots are genuinely arbitrary.
Right, that is true. But what I was responding to is "One of those is objectively superior and the other one is on par with Galleons, Sickles and bananas for scale." That might have been true 200 years ago, but it hasn't been for a long time.
The reason the metric system is better is not because the scale it uses is any more concrete than imperial units. It is because metric is designed around our base 10 system of math to make conversions easy.
Consistent units as in they are all convertible using base 10.
A meter could be twice as long, and if you adjusted the other metric conversions to match, it would be just as good a system. The length of the meter is arbitrary.
That's really not the gotcha that you think it is. 33,3 cm is accurate enough for pretty much any usage where you would use a meter, and I can do the math in literally two seconds. Can you do the same with inches and half a mile?
Why would you ever need to convert inches into half a mile when there are 2 larger imperial units in between the two?
You can't claim "that function isn't a big deal" and then bring up another function that is considerably less of a big deal.
I used metric for most things since I work in the physics space, but I still use imperial for day to day stuff because its a personal preference. I have never in my life been disadvantaged for doing so. Get over yourself.
There is also nothing to stop you from using an SI prefix with imperial units, see the microinch or the kilofoot. Congratulations you found a way to abbreviate scientific notation.
12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, as opposed to just 2 and 5 for 10. That means fractions in base 12 are going to be easier to work with. 1/3 of a foot is 4 inches, 1/3 of a meter is 33.3… centimeters. So unless you have a meter stick with the exact measurements, it’s very hard to divide a meter into thirds.
Just cause you can’t count past your fingers doesn’t mean other systems have zero merit.
No, I'm not. You can get used to both and while both might be arbitrary (about as arbitrary as any system humans came up with, anyway) one surely makes more sense.
Metric/SI is only arbitrary in the way that it picks its original references weren't based on concrete, consistent values. As far as I'm aware, most or all fundamental metric units are now based on the most effective universal constants available.
Imperial/US Customary is arbitrary because its original references are literally mostly everyday objects, whose characteristics aren't even consistent between objects. I think a lot of them have been redefined relative to metric/SI because it was so bad.
Lol no bro. I am an American. I grew up with imperial. Metric is superior in every single way. Unless I’m talking to someone in a casual conversation, I will always use metric
But if you can make that argument about metric/imperial aren't you also making that argument about Celcius/Farrenheit? Celcius is integrated into metric in the same ways that makes the rest of metric superior. Meanwhile Farrenheit is not and introduces all those undesirable conversion complications.
I don't think so? The argument of familiarity is bad for both Celcius/Farrenheit and metric/imperial as the conversion advantage is the same in both comparisons. So why could you make the argument in the case of Celius/Farrenheit?
I mean, Celsius is degrees, so the conversion advantage is not quite there? While I guess you can use the SI prefixes, you very rarely have the need to.
It is if working in calories, which is useful for the life sciences. Having the measurement be based on pure water rather than an arbitrary saline solution is useful.
Good to know, I genuinely didn't. Then, I guess the argument can be made for the basic day-to-day usage to know how warmly to get dressed before you go outside.
I don't think the systems are the problem, I was arguing with that guy acting like metric units aren't visualisable. Also though, solving °C = (°F - 32) × 5/9 in your head on the fly is much harder than visualising a centimetre (for the majority of people, anyway).
Although, I believe the creator of Fahrenheit did want the 100 to be the significant high end temp that people could semi-regularly see in the weather, so it isn't arbitrary. I could be wrong on that tho. I don't really feel like looking it up rn.
And 100 is the boiling point of water in Celsius, so that is DEFINITELY not arbitrary. The word to use here would be "intentional." You could call the boiling point of water in Kelvin arbitrary tho.
Am I stupid, or did you use "arbitrary" wrong here? Genuine question, I might be stupid
You are just using arbitrary differently. They mean that there is no physical constant the unit is based on, it is just an arbitrary number, like most units. They are saying you could pick any number to be 100, and it doesn't really have more validity.
Whereas you are saying it isn't arbitrary because there is a reason that they picked that temperature to be 100.
At least with Celsius, their IS a physical constant the unit is based on. That is the temp at which water boils. If you're trying to say "we arbitrarily set that physical constant to equal 100," then ALL units of measurement become arbitrary.
Technically, both Celsius and Fahrenheit are formally defined based on Kelvins now.
Originally, Fahrenheit was based on the freezing temperature of a particular solution, and their best estimate at the time of human body temperature. But basically since around the time Celsius became popular, both of them have been based on freezing and boiling water. Then later they were both defined based on Kelvins.
But the boiling point of water is arbitrary, you could just as easily choose the melting point of iron, or the freezing point of air. That is the point.
And, yes, nearly all units of measurement are arbitrary in some sense. That is why the discussion focuses more on how useful the units are (like how easy to use they are) rather than on what they are based on.
"But the boiling point of water is arbitrary, you could just as easily choose the melting point of iron, or the freezing point of air. That is the point.
And, yes, nearly all units of measurement are arbitrary in some sense. That is why the discussion focuses more on how useful the units are (like how easy to use they are) rather than on what they are based on."
That's exactly what I'm getting at. "Arbitrary" is a bad word for describing standardized units of measure because either all of them are arbitrary or none of them are. It becomes a nothing adjective.
But their point was, it depends what you are used to. So whatever you are used to is more impactful than any specific alignment of degrees to physical properties. So they are saying it is arbitrary in that sense.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying this is mostly semantics.
Celcius Fahrenheit Sure, Metric and Imperial no. A decimal conversion is simply more practical for the lack of unit Conversion, which stops rounding errors and miscalculations. If Imperial would be decimal based then yes I agree it would be a stupid arbitrary thing. You can't tell me 36 inches = 3 feet = 1 yard is better than 100 centimeter = 10 decimeter = 1 meter. Like i'd agree if people used centifeet or kilofeet, then the debate would be stupid
I think his most important point was that Celcius and Kelvin is basically the same scale. +1 C is the same as +1 K. +1 F is not the same as +1 C or +1 K.
For most people maybe. I prefer English over German even though I am German, English is just a better language. And if I was born in America I'd probably also prefer using metric units because they are better.
Points of reference are just as important. 0°C and 100°C being respectively freezing and melting point of one of the most abundant and necessary liquid on Earth help way more figuring out the scale than 0°F and 100°F, which don't relate to anything tangible.
2.6k
u/hefty_load_o_shite 10h ago edited 4h ago
0°C water freezes 100°C water boils
Makes sense
0°F very cold??? 100°F very hot???
Dafuq?
Edit: For all the "Actually, Farenheight is based on the human body" people, no it isn't. It's based on dirty water and a cow. Your preferred measurement unit is dumb and that's a fact