4 ms·

I'm with you on most of the metric system: but there's a good argument that Celsius is decidedly inferior to Fahrenheit (of course, neither are SI).

• lyschoening 11y ago
  If you like angles or big numbers? 0/100°C trumps 32/212°F in my book; and body temperatures – 37°C vs 98°F – are equally difficult to remember.
  • SeanLuke 11y ago
    Let's turn that on its head. Do you prefer 0/100 F or -18/38 C for measuring typical weather temperatures? And Fahrenheit's higher unit precision is a distinct advantage in taking and interpreting temperatures of people, particularly children.
• vacri 11y ago
  Celsius vs Fahrenheit seems to be the same as Aluminium vs Aluminum: the one you grew up with is the one that seems to make more sense.
  • SeanLuke 11y ago
    I don't think a good argument can be made for Celsius. Like Fahrenheit, Celsius exists as a measure of temperatures within the typical experience of humans. There is one primary use of such a scale, and that is measurement of air temperature (weather, indoor temperature). A distant secondary use is in cooking. Faherenheit's 0-100 range is basically a close match for the extremes in weather temperature experienced by typical human beings. Celsius is not even close. Additionally, Fahrenheit's scale has roughly twice the resolution of Celsius, and humans are good at distinguishing this precision. Unit precision is also helpful for body temperature. Regarding the distant secondary use: obviously Celsius's range matches freezing and boiling: but because water's phase change is consistent and obvious at these temperatures (modulo altitude), cooking rarely involves measuring temperatures in this range except for unusual cases like candy. Celsius has no advantage at all for the primary use of temperature in cooking: baking.