3 ms·

> The author is full of it. Whichever system you grew up with will seem natural to you. This seems to be a reinforcement of the point you quoted, and not a ref

by Gormo 12y ago

> The author is full of it. Whichever system you grew up with will seem natural to you. This seems to be a reinforcement of the point you quoted, and not a refutation of it.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
That would depend on who he's calling "us". It doesn't include me! I read "us" as "people, all people in general" and disagreed. The statement "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us people who prefer Customary measures" is true but only as an uninteresting tautology. Do you think he meant "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us Americans" ? That is, "Americans excluding Canadians, immigrants and scientifically literate". The statement read as "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us people who were raised on them" is true. But by not being explicit about that he is misleading.
- Gormo 12y ago
  > That is, "Americans excluding Canadians, immigrants and scientifically literate". Well, I think it would include Canadians in most circumstances - metric adoption in Canada is only marginally more pervasive than in the US - and would also include most "scientifically literate" Americans outside the context of formal scientific research (it would seem a bit absurd to suggest that because a microbiologist measures his research subjects in nanometers, he'll somehow find it optimal to use the same unit to measure his furniture). But, yes, as a tautology, it isn't much of an argument for or against anything, apart from being a very strong argument against artificial imposition of unnecessary changes.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    Sure. Though I wouldn't categorise the USA (and to some extent Canada and UK) finally getting on board the same metric bus as the rest of the planet as entirely "unnecessary".
    - Gormo 12y ago
      I don't understand why it's necessary to implement methods in your own situation just because someone else is using them in theirs. That seems to be a cargo-cult mentality. If there's no endogenous case for using the metric system, why do so? By the same reasoning, you could argue that people should all adopt e.g. Esperanto in place of their own languages for use in all circumstances without distinction.

by Gormo 12y ago

> The author is full of it. Whichever system you grew up with will seem natural to you. This seems to be a reinforcement of the point you quoted, and not a refutation of it.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago

That would depend on who he's calling "us". It doesn't include me! I read "us" as "people, all people in general" and disagreed. The statement "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us people who prefer Customary measures" is true but only as an uninteresting tautology. Do you think he meant "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us Americans" ? That is, "Americans excluding Canadians, immigrants and scientifically literate". The statement read as "Customary measures make a lot more sense to us people who were raised on them" is true. But by not being explicit about that he is misleading.

Gormo 12y ago
> That is, "Americans excluding Canadians, immigrants and scientifically literate". Well, I think it would include Canadians in most circumstances - metric adoption in Canada is only marginally more pervasive than in the US - and would also include most "scientifically literate" Americans outside the context of formal scientific research (it would seem a bit absurd to suggest that because a microbiologist measures his research subjects in nanometers, he'll somehow find it optimal to use the same unit to measure his furniture). But, yes, as a tautology, it isn't much of an argument for or against anything, apart from being a very strong argument against artificial imposition of unnecessary changes.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  Sure. Though I wouldn't categorise the USA (and to some extent Canada and UK) finally getting on board the same metric bus as the rest of the planet as entirely "unnecessary".
  - Gormo 12y ago
    I don't understand why it's necessary to implement methods in your own situation just because someone else is using them in theirs. That seems to be a cargo-cult mentality. If there's no endogenous case for using the metric system, why do so? By the same reasoning, you could argue that people should all adopt e.g. Esperanto in place of their own languages for use in all circumstances without distinction.