FEEDING THE TROLLS...

      A common trolling post besides the ever popular "Atheism vs. Christianity" posts, is one making fun of the seemingly bizarre and ineffective Imperial* measurement system versus that of the Metric system.

One of the zillions of examples out there (click to enlarge)

      Now, yes, the metric system is ridiculously easy to learn and implement. Everything is base-10 without exception...okay, there is an exception, time. Even the biggest proponents of the metric system still insist on using 24 hour days comprised of 60 minute hours which are in turn comprised of 60 second minutes. Time only becomes metric below the second and at the year level. But more on that later. I fully support the use of the metric system for scientific calculation because it truly is a sensible thing to do. It is easily scaled without resorting to complicated translations of units. The difference between finding the strength of an object's gravitation when measured in grams or kilograms is merely adjusting each unit to one thousandth its size. Easy. The difference between ounces and pounds, not so much. I'd much rather work with calories than British Thermal Units even though saying BTUs sounds more authoritative and saying calories prompts thoughts of food and drink.

      My argument for the Imperial system isn't that it is better for calculations...it isn't. However, the units in this system are not as arbitrary as one might suspect at first glance and the way to use these units is better suited for a preliterate, pre-readily available paper and ink society. Measurements like the foot, barrel, cup, link, and grain were clearly based on readily-available objects at the time. Seeds are fairly uniform in size and small so one might see how they could be used to determine the weights of light (or more likely) precious objects like gold where high value comes in a small package. Using one's own foot is a crude way of determining size as well (albeit a crude one as feet are not uniform in size).

      But the thing that gets this system made fun of the most is stuff like 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 5½ yards in a rod (the least sensible unit in this system by the way), 40 rods in a furlong, and 8 furlongs in a mile. They will say the mile is 5,280 feet, a truly nonsensical amount when compared to the elegant 1,000 meters in a kilometer. They will challenge Imperial defenders by asking how many square inches are in a mile, or how many cubic cups of water are in a lake, etc. not understanding that this system was not designed to be used that way. The Imperial system is more suited for abacus-like measurements. Every twelve inches, move over the foot peg and reset the inches; every three feet, move the yard peg and reset the inches and feet; etc. The correct answer to how many square inches are there in square mile is "Why would you ever need to know that?". Even the metric system, yes, I can calculate (rather easily) how many cubic millimeters of water there are in a kiloliter, but why? At that scale, you wouldn't be talking about cubic millimeters. The same for the Imperial system. As it scales up (or down), the old measurements are left behind and you use the new ones.

       Surveyors would use chains comprised of 100 links to measure fields or backyards. Fields are relatively small. You wouldn't measure a county or even a town in chains, you'd use furlongs or miles and for farms, you'd use acres. I could figure out how many square acres the state of Alabama has, but it would be an inappropriate unit to use for a measurement of that size. I could tell you how much the Earth weighs approximately in pounds, but the Earth is fucking enormous and pounds are not a suitable unit to measure its mass with.

       And that's all it really is. You start measuring in inches until inches become too large, then you use feet. If there are too many feet, use yards, and so forth. The same with liquids. Start with drops. Too many drops? Go to teaspoons, then to tablespoons, then to fluid ounces, then to gills, then to cups, and pints and quarts and gallons and barrels and so forth. It depends on the size of the task at hand. Sure, it seems unwieldy, but it is sensible on the small scale.

       An advantage of the Imperial system too, is divisibility. While base-10 is really easy to work with, it has limitations when it comes to fractions. 10 is only divisible by 5 and 2 whereas 12 (inches in a foot) is divisible by 6, 4, 3, and 2 allowing for half a foot, a third of a foot, a quarter of a foot, and a sixth. That is the same reasoning behind there being 360° in a circle because that number can be far more easily partitioned. There are 90 degrees in a right angle but 100 gradians (which I guess would most approximate a metric version of this). 90 is divisible by 45, 30, 18, 15, 10, 9, 6, 5, 3, and 2 whereas 100 is only divisible by 50, 25, 20, 10, 5, 4, and 2. And while 90 degree angles allow for thirds, gradians do not (without producing endless decimal places). Also, old money systems like the British £/s/d took advantage of this divisibility. It may have seemed strange to have 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound (total of 240 pence) but those numbers could be divvied up multiple ways whereas the decimalized dollar is more limited in this department.

       One superiority, though, in my opinion is Fahrenheit over Centigrade. Although it may seem insensible to use 180 degrees separating the freezing and boiling points of water, the extra degrees do make for a finer scale. There's a greater difference in each degree Centigrade than there is with Fahrenheit. And true to the Imperial system, Fahrenheit (I think) better relates to the human experience. When it's 100° outside, you know it's fucking hot. And if it's like 2°, you know it's fucking cold. Fahrenheit better represents the extremes of normal human tolerance. Temperatures above 100 degrees are dangerous as are temperatures below 0 whereas Celsius does not convey that sense of direness.

       The one thing, though, about the metric system I don't understand is why they didn't commit to metric time. Why not have a 10 hour day comprised of 100 minute hours which are in turn comprised of 100 second minutes? The unit length, yes, would have to be adjusted but people got used to liters over quarts (approximately the same size...liter slightly bigger) and kilograms over pounds (≈2.2 lbs. in a kilogram) and the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius (98.6°F ≈ 37°C) and meters over feet (1 yard ≈ .9 meter), so why not a slightly longer second and longer hour and whatnot? Yes, the Earth's revolution about the sun cannot be made metric, but the way we measure each rotation can be, so why haven't they? What made time so perfect as is that it could not be sacrificed upon the altar of metric? What would be wrong with 1 day equaling a kilominute?

       So, to end this poorly constructed blog entry, where I stand is that the metric system is quite superior and downright essential for scientific calculations; but for the average man, woman, and child...the Imperial system offers something equally sensible on the small, limited scale of our lives. Think of Roman numerals. They are completely unsuited for mathematics yet they remain as a kind of "official" numbering system. MCMLXXVIII looks more important, more cultured, than 1978. And if I can learn how to write in manuscript and cursive and have them exist alongside one and other, why can't metric and Imperial also exist side-by-side in their respective domains?

___________________________________________
* in the event of any conflict in measurement, use the US measurement system. For instance, in British Imperial measurement, a gill is equal to five fluid ounces whereas for US Imperial measurement, it is four (in other words, ½ cup)