Re: measuring systems (was: Selenites)

Simon Kissane wrote:

> > (I frankly don't understand the argument that keeping the names would cause
> > confusion;  context will always tell you that, almost without exception, I'm sure)
> Why keep the same names? If you are going to change the definitions of
> all the units you might as well rename them.
First off, only some of the units.  Have you seen how many units theCustomary system
uses?  _Lots_, and they're all messy.  We have listed
about five or six of the most commonly used units.  There are at least
20 or 30 others in at least theoretical use, none of which are very well
known, and all of which are annoyingly difficult to use.

> It would cause confusion. Think of going to the supermarket
> to buy some flour. All the flour bags on the shelf are labelled 1 pound,
> but some would be 453 g and some 500g...
Here's the second misconception:  nothing would be in the old system.It would be stupid to
have some in the new and some in the old;  this
is not like spelling where it might possibly be feasible to phase in a
system of units over a long period of time (as even only somewhat
near approximations would suffice to let the reader understand, whereas
here, everything must be exact, or very close to exact.

Again, how would it cause confusion?  There would certainly be no
_mental_ confusion, because before _any_ new system of measurements
would be implemented (metric or a my system or whatever), there would
be years of discussion and planning and so forth.  The public would know
about it.  It would seem to them no more confusing than seeing a new Ben
Franklin portrait on the 100 dollar bill which just came out, that is, not at
all.  To say otherwise is to make the people of the country out to be some
sort of sluggards or something, to have a very low view of  people at
large.

Now, I will say that, as with any plan to change the spelling system
(as in our discussions a while back), there will be considerable difficulties
with the practical problems of changing the infrastructure of the country
to a new system.  But this would (1) occur with any system change,
and (2) to try to say my system would be somehow different than a
change over to metric system is to deny difficulties with the metric
change over itself, because my system, if anybody has been reading
carefully, is merely a few more terminological forms for the already
extant knowledge of the metric system. It's a derived system, not a wholly
different system.

It's designed to accomodate the present system in some sense and the
populus at large, who seem to favor some sort of continuity in the system
(or so the statistics would have us believe).

> The only solution is to call the new measurements by the new names, but
> by that point there is no reason not to adopt metric system.
Why do people always think they know my system when it hasn't
been fully discussed?  Five or six measures would not do for a modern
system of measurement.  For this reason, the whole rest of the
internationally used metric system would be used.

Sorry if I sound a little defensive, but I feel like people aren't reading what
I have written.  Go back, look at it again, and then you'll see that it's like
adding new forms for convenience, not making a new system different
in fundamentals from that of the metric system.


=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

We look at [the Tao], and do not see it;
  Its name is the Invisible.
                 - Lao Tsu, _Tao Te Ching_

Nature is wont to hide herself.
                 - Herakleitos
========================================================