Excuse me, but Gabriel Fahrenheit wasn’t born until well after the Stone Age. There’s nothing particularly backward about using English rather than metric. And Jane Austen made referrence to miles in at least one of her books.

Why must our friends in Europe be so frightened of the measurement system we use?

Jane Austin? OK I take it back then - you’re not in the stone age, you’re in the 18th century ;)

Actually in the EU we have to sell everything in metric by law, hence the 454g (1lb) jars of foodstuffs and 568ml (1 pint) bottles of milk you see in the shops. There was a bit of a hoo-ha in the UK when these laws were introduced a few years ago but no-one really gives a shit any more. The only place we are still imperial is in the road system - distances and speed limits are still in miles - although there are calls for this to be brought into line with the rest of europe (km).

That Austen. But I’m impressed that you got the century right.

I looked it up ;)
(And forgot to check the spelling, evidentially!)

“There is nothing particularly backward about using English” This statement is very incorrect. Everything is backwards about the imperial system. Here are some examples:

- an inch is both too small and too large to use as any real measurement. Centimeters and millimeters are useful. We have to say things like “eighth of an inch.” How lame is that?

- conversions in your head are impossible. the foot is 12 inches. What? How many meters in a kilometer. Well, kilo means 1000… so… 1000 meters
How many feet in a mile? 5280. Five Thousand Two Hundred EIGHTY. How is this not backwards?
Seriously. it’s based off the size of some dude’s foot.

- ounces are a unit of both fluid and weight

- As for Mr. Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, he based his temperature scale off regular outdoor temperature. something that varies daily. Celsius is based off of the freezing point and boiling point of water… this is far more reliable.

- Do you know what one ’slug’ is? it’s 1 lb sec^2/foot. Do you even know what that is? Do you realize how painful this is when you are trying to show a mass over an inch? it’s disgusting!

If you’d like more examples, I can provide them.

Mike, you’re in danger of winning this argument, but I will never surrender the imperial system. The metric system would mess up American football considerably. We can’t give up yards. And “fourth and centimeters” isn’t quite as exciting as “fourth and inches”. No room for metric there.

The only thing the metric (or SI) system has against it, in my mind, is the lack of creativity. Fluid volume will only be measured in liters and divisions thereof. In the imperial system, we have gallons, pints, quarts, cups, teaspoons, hogsheads, magnums, shots, fluid ounces, etc. You can name a unit after your first-born if you are popular enough!

As for ounces being a unit of both fluid volume and weight, they separate, the fluid ounce and the ounce. They are related in the same way that the milliliter and the milligram are.

Another strike against the metric system is that units of mass are consistently used as units of weight/force (I weight 60 kilos).

That said, I still dig SI.

an inch is both too small and too large to use as any real measurement.

Not so. I use inches all the time.

How many feet in a mile? 5280. Five Thousand Two Hundred EIGHTY. How is this not backwards?
Seriously. it’s based off the size of some dude’s foot.

First of all, it may be illogical or even unscientific, but that does not constitute backwards. And there’s an email going around that says it all goes back to chariots, and thus the width of a horse’s back end. Since the Romans introduced the 5, 280 ft mile, maybe we shouldn’t call it an English measurement. Damn Romans! They probably stole the idea from someone, like they did with everything else they “invented.”

Jes Saint is right about the football.

You’re over-thinking this Mike. Geez, scientific minds! Give ‘em 2.5 centimeters, and they take 1.6 kilometers.

well of course you use the Inch, it’s the unit of measurement with which you feel most familiar. Just because you are comfortable with it doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea.

I think unscientific and illogical DOES constitute backwardness.

Check out this definition of backwardness:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backwardness
“Behind others in progress or development.”

Is the metric system not significantly more developed?

As a few examples: it has easy internal division and multiplication, it has thoughtful intelligent design between units (1ml = 1cm ^3), it has a solid background (vs. shoe sizes and beliefs of origin spread via e-mail), and it is far more prevalent around the world. That last point might seem iffy, but keep in mind the purpose of a unit is to provide a standard by which all of us can measure things.

The only benefit that I see to the English system is that you and I feel comfortable with it. Selfish? yes.

There’s nothing wrong with being selfish once in awhile. By the way, Mike, are you going to change all the measurements in posted recipes to reflect your devotion to the metric system? Do European recipes use metric?

Any new posted recipe will likely be posted in Metric. Anything that was done in the past will remain as is. If you’re going to Metricize. you gotta do it right.

And yes, recipes in Metric countries use Metric.

I wondered about that.

Good news for Roland, then. I’m quite disappointed though. I like new recipes. Good luck with the metricizing.

Rarely do I actually write the recipes out on my website. If I do, and you need a conversion, just let me know and I’ll e-mail you the English version.

Seriously, dealing with American recipes that use “cups” is a pain - in the past I’ve only been able to follow them since we (my family) used to live in the US way back when and so had a set of “cups”. Using imperial is not too bad, but makes me feel kind of dirty afterwards ;)

Still, backwards is not always a bad thing. And progress is not always a good thing. One might progress right off a cliff.

For units, backwards is a bad thing. It results in a higher frequency of errors. Errors that could easily endanger or take lives.

Check the google definition of ‘progress.’ It is actually defined as “develop in a positive way.” so by definition, progress is a good thing.

If you were to progress right off a cliff, then your goal must have been to get off the cliff. Otherwise, running off the cliff wouldn’t have been progress in the first place.

Mike, you do realize we’re talking about two different words spelled the same way, don’t you? The definition you cited would be the noun form as opposed to the intransitive verb. I can see your point as far as applications of science go, but in my life no one will be endangered by which units of measurement I choose.

Regardless of your grammatical games, which fail to amuse the D, I think it’s very safe to say that the English system of units is indeed backwards.

Actually, your usage of the imperial system could very much put people at risk or be highly costly to others. The more people that use that backwards system, the more likely that other people will use it as well. Are your children growing up in a well thought out international Metric household or a convoluted imperial system household? Surely someone in your lineage will find themselves entering the field of science. Let’s hope that they do not find themselves in charge of a mission such as the Mars Climate Orbiter, which missed its mark on Mars because some folks at Lockheed Martin used English units.

$327.6 million down the tubes.

Standards should be standard for all. You could use a different Time system if you wanted to… say, midnight could be at 6:30am. But in doing so, you make it harder for everyone else and especially for those that you influence directly.

Mike D, based on my posts on this subject, do you really think it’s likely that someone of my line would ever go into science? Especially with me as an influence? I propose that my using the Metric system would be more dangerous.

My children aren’t really into measurements yet. I’m still working on getting the younger two to speak.

It’s really a question of standards and whether you appreciate the benefit to society of all sticking to one standard.

If we all used vastly different versions of the English language think about how confusing things would be? It really doesn’t make any sense. Would you rather teach your children Ebonics or proper English?

The imperial system of units is flat out inferior. Can you not see this?

Mike, many people do use vastly different versions of the English language, but it’s up to the educated to transcend vernacular. It is entirely possible to be fluent in both Metric and Imperial measurements. In my opinion, this sets the bar higher for Americans with professions requiring knowledge and use of both. Would the benefits of standardization outweigh the cost to our liberty if we were forced to accept the metric system? This is a slippery slope, Mike. First, we standardize measurements, then language, then money, etc. Where does it end?

It certainly is possible to be fluent in both Metric and Imperial. But… why would we do this?

First, units are a tool. Let’s say you needed to put a nail into board. If you had both tools available would it be better to use a rock or a hammer?

The loss of liberty of being forced to use Metric? Are you serious? Do you feel that your liberties have been sacrificed by being ‘forced’ to use the standard time zones?

The long term benefits of switching to Metric would be immeasurable. Think of the worldly effort that goes into converting the two… it’s disgusting. Perhaps you don’t see it as frequently as I do, but it really is alarming. Anyone who works in a world business needs two sets of tools, conversion programs, and hours of education to understand how to carefully use units. I alone spend countless hours a year hunting down errors in math that originated during metric-english conversions. It is a huge problem. And standards are standards. The reason I have to spend so many hours doing this worthless work is because people in the west and south who have Nothing to do with engineering demand 1 inch diameter pipe.

On an entirely different note we have language and cash. But I’d prefer not debating those here. In my example, I was simply trying to use an analogy that Anita might better grasp. Let’s not get too far off our original debate which was whether or not the Imperial system is backwards.

So really this is about making your life easier at the expense of American football fans. LOL

As per rock vs hammer: what kind of rock? what size is the rock? what size is the nail? who manufactured the hammer? And what’s wrong with getting away from the point?

The type of rock doesn’t matter in the least. The hammer was designed for the job and I would wager that you would use the hammer if given the two choices - regardless of the rock offered.

I think that I’ve proven that the Imperial system is indeed a backwards one. The Metric system is not. I don’t mind so much if you don’t switch over, but it’s important to understand why the Metric system is superior and that we, as Americans, should appreciate the efficiency and superiority of Metric over Imperial. All too often I find myself in the field with people who curse the Metric system. How terribly ignorant!

The underlying point, as I see it, is the appreciation for standards, efficiency, and general improvement of the world.

Actually the type of rock does matter. Some sedimentary rocks would break, whereas with igneous you’d stand a better chance of being able to pound the nail in. Also the shape of the rock might make a difference.

Mike, I’ll make you a deal. You can switch the country over to Metric provided that the Imperial system can still be used for Football (thereby increasing the difficulty as players would have to be able to learn what, to them, would seem a foreign way of measuring), standard phrases (A journey of a thousand miles…) and Prose, Poetry, and Song.

The number of words that rhyme with kilometer might in fact be quite long, but they will not lend themselves well to popular music. Example: Last night in the rain I walked ten kilometers; girl, there’s a steady falling of your love barometer.

I have to say, this is the longest and silliest conversation in the history of the world.

I mean really, if the rock was right here and the hammer was over across the chasm with the rickety bridge, I would just use the rock and get over it.

This is a perfect analogue.
I could use metric but I’d have to cross over the rickety bridge of remembering that there are 2.54 cms in an inch and 453 grams in a pound. Since i’m on this side of the bridge, i’m just gonna use the rock.

Maybe if i had to go to mars, I would bother to build a better bridge or pick a side so I wouldn’t have to use the rock, but that’s just me.

Actually Anita, the rock type Doesn’t matter. This is an argument about units.

I’m not trying to turn the U.S. to Metric, I’m trying to help you realize the serious benefits of Metric and the importance of standards being standard.

Jon:
The original analogy said that both the rock and the hammer are available to you. You can use either. there is no chasm or rickety bridge.

As for your analogy modifications, I do not doubt that we are all very familiar with English units. I am no different than you in that regard. But what I am trying to convey is the importance of not being ignorant to the fact that Metric is a better system of units than Imperial and that in order to be effective, standards should be world wide.

Ok, but try pounding a nail with a chunk of talc.

Mike, if you’re going to take over the world, why not do the Metric thing while you’re at it? You are going to take over the world, aren’t you?

Regarding the use of Imperial units in American football:

Before the middle of the last century, all track and field events (as well as cycling and swimming, presumably) were measured in yards and/or miles. The 110, 220, 440, and 880 yard races, as well as the mile, 2-mile, and 3-mile, were the standards in America and England, and had been for quite some time. However, since then, the conversion to metric units has been accepted, and with little difficulty. The 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, races, along with the 1500m, 3000m, and 5000m races are the standards today. However, the mile is still held at some events, though today’s tracks are built upon a metric standard, so the start line is in an odd spot. However, that remains the only event that is not measured in metric. It is basically kept as a touchstone, so the new records can be compared to the old ones. And, of course, sentimental reasons.

There are a lot more people who run in America than who play football. A change in units has taken place, and can take place. 4th and millimeters is even more dramatic anyways, IMHO.

Yes, but there are a lot more people who WATCH football.

Oh, but I’m forgetting the multiple billions of dollars in attendance fees and merchandising that track offers the economy.

If the US switches to Metric in general, but leaves football the Imperial system, then future generations of football players will have to learn a new system just to play the game. This will take the “dumb jock” tradition and turn it on it’s ear. If you can’t master both measurement systems, you don’t play. It could be considered a triumph of sorts.

Does the switch to discussions about football mean that you agree that the Imperial system is a backwards one?

I wasn’t seriously opposed to the idea that it’s backwards, but I still say backwards isn’t always bad. By the way, I think the money spent on Mars Rover would have been wasted regardless.

Mind you the definition of backwards is behind others in progress. Progress is defined as being positive.

‘Bad’ is defined as having undesirable qualities.

The English system is backwards as it is behind others in progress. It is behind others in progress because it has undesirable qualities.

The English system = backwards = bad.

Can you give me an example where backwardness does not mean that something has undesirable qualities?

As I see it, anything that is behind others in progress means that it has been improved upon. If it didn’t have undesirable qualities, there would be no reason to improve it.

Considering it was the middle of the century, before professional football even had a superbowl, and the fact that cycling did it well before then (when cycling, especially track racing, was as popular as football is now), yes, it is an accurate comparison.

If you’re going to defend an antiquated measurement system, fine. Just don’t do it and say that it’s because progress is bad. On the internet, no less.

I never said progress is bad, Aaron. I just said that backward isn’t always bad. And I didn’t criticize your analogy either. Just pointed out why I disagreed with it. And who mentioned the Superbowl? I certainly didn’t.

Mike, an example of backwards not being bad. How about traditional morals as opposed to modern morals (or rather lack thereof)? Just because a lot of people consider getting rid of morals to be progress doesn’t mean it really is. And it certainly does not improve life, or improve upon tradition. In the long run the old-fashioned way is best. It’s just people in general no longer think in terms of the long run.

One of the problems with this argument of ours is that you are dealing almost exclusively with the concrete, while I am favoring the abstract. It makes it more fun, but it also makes it less likely this will end any time soon. Besides, I love to argue/debate. I’m Irish, it’s in my blood. Though I do admit to your being a worthy opponent.

You say “just because a lot of people consider getting rid of morals to be progress doesn’t mean it really is.”

And to this you are exactly right. But ours is not a debate of whether or not progress is being made, it’s whether or not backwardness is bad.

If people are debating over morals, they aren’t debating over whether backwardness is bad, they are debating over whether or not progress has been made.

Where progress is being made, a previous design was backwards. Whether something is deemed progress or not is a totally different question.

If you’d like, we can try to think of examples of how red things aren’t red. Despite their being red by definition.

My point is that progress and backwardness are often subjective. And you seem to have missed the example that a large percentage of people consider traditional morals to be backwards. So they think modern morals are progress. They can even cite what, to them, constitutes proof. It doesn’t make them right.

In your opinion the Metric system represents progress, and the Imperial system is backwards. Granted you have objective facts to back up your beliefs, but it still doesn’t prove that you’re right. Of course you believe you are. But you can’t convince me unless I’m willing to be convinced.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the Imperial system overall, and since the term “backward” is relative and subjective, I can argue this for quite a long time yet.

If you’re trying to pin me down I should warn you that I don’t wrestle.

Speaking of whether red things are red…am I the only person in the world who can tell red, fuschia, and purple apart?

Backwardness can totally be subjective! I didn’t miss your point that people have different views on whether or not moral direction has been positive. I understand this fully.

You seem to have missed my point that whether or not people think something is backwards does not change the fact that backwardness is bad.

Let’s say there I made a dinner. We could argue all day as to whether it was tasty or not, because that’s all opinion. All the arguing in the world does not change the fact that tasty means “pleasant to taste.”

Let’s look at the American Heritage Dictionary for backwardness:

dv. or back·wards (-wərdz)
back’ward·ness n.

1. To or toward the back or rear.
2. With the back leading.
3. In a reverse manner or order.
4. To, toward, or into the past.
5. Toward a worse or less advanced condition.

“Toward a worse or less advanced condition”. Hmm. This doesn’t sound good does it? it even uses the word “worse.” Typically “worse” does not mean “better.”

Now if you’d like to argue that something is backwards or not, I can go back to giving examples of why Metric is better. But then again, you’ve already said that you aren’t “seriously opposed to the idea that it’s [the english system of units] backwards.” (see your comment above) This is good. we’re making progress. and progress is good.

Or… at least so says the dictionary.

intr.v. pro·gress (prə-grěs’) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es

1. To advance; proceed
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily

But “worse” is still subjective.

And using the first definition of progress, as stated previously, it is possible to progress right off a cliff. Progress is not always good. It is seen as good, but every bit of progress in the world creates more complications. Opportunity cost, Mike. Just because it’s not seen at first, or maybe ever, doesn’t mean there aren’t drawbacks. From the standpoint of convenience, yes progress is good. But overall it may not be. And if progress is not always good, then backwardness is not always bad.

By the way Mike, you’ll be happy to learn that in my son’s first grade class all measurements included in the material are given in both English and Metric. Another victory for the French.

You’re trying the same argument again and it does not work.

You can debate whether something is or is not progress.

You can not debate that progress means improvement. It is defined as such.

You can debate whether something is worse or not.

You can not debate that backwardness means something is worse. It is defined as such.

Your “progress” of a cliff is a weak argument because it’s a different usage of the word. Shall we try and come to a consensus on analysis of the word ‘Lead.’ You can argue for
‘to travel in front’ I’ll argue for the metallic element. Or maybe I’ll just let you bicker endlessly. Good luck with that.

Let me know if you come up with a unique argument. Your repetition is just a waste of my time.

Mike I’m not arguing that progress is good and backward is bad as far as definition, just that the “bad” and “good” themselves are subjective. If everyone agreed 100% that something was bad, and backwards, that would be different (though they could still be wrong).

If to classify something as backwards it must first be classified as “worse,” it is still based on subjectivity.

And if to classify something as progress means it must first be classified as an improvement, it is still based on subjectivity.

For instance: years ago Sundrop “improved” it’s formula. I liked the old formula and think the new ones tastes awful. They consider it progress. I don’t (in my opinion it’s a step “backward”). All subjective.

See my point?

By the way, in saying backwardness is not always bad I was not arguing about its definition but rather the connotations people use in assigning it (i.e. metric makes life easier for engineers; therefore English is backward).

You don’t need to continue to try to convince me on opinions, because I never disagreed with you. Subjectivity is the reason why I first addressed my point by showing flaws in the English system. I must first convince you that something is bad before you’ll agree that it is backwards… this is because backwardness is always bad. If you don’t agree it’s bad, then you also don’t agree it’s backwards.

I have never disagreed with this and will not disagree with it.

If you admit that backwardness is always bad and that you are not seriously opposed with saying that the English system of units is backwards… then I feel satisfied that I have successfully supported the Metric cause and helped prevent ignorance of efficiency.

For Pete’s sake, this is getting ridiculous. One of you is arguing in concrete, the other in abstract.

Here’s the million dollar question you’ve been arguing around all week: Is it backwardness that’s bad, or the perception thereof?

If you start debating the definition of the word “is”, then I give up.

Don’t make me use the nuclear option!
I will!

I’m crazy!

No one’s forcing you to read, Jon Abad. I don’t know about Mike D, but I’m having fun with this.

Actually Jes Saint, since Webster has established that backwardness must be bad, that part isn’t an issue. Whether the perception of something being backward is bad is another kettle of fish. It depends on the issue and once again comes down to opinion. We could throw in other factors like moral convictions, IQ, education level, and what we all had for lunch, but that would take too long.

Side note that might help people better understand me: when I was a toddler I once jumped head-first off the top step of our porch and landed on the sidewalk. Not sure as to my motivation for jumping, but Mom and Daddy seem to think I was trying to fly. So you see I’ve always had problems with the concrete.

I don’t think you understand my relationship to the internet. As its steward, I have to read everything.

Yes, Jon Abad has to read all. It’s both his power and his curse.

But do not worry Mr. Abad. As Anita has not offered any disagreement with my statements on backwardsness being bad and the Imperial system being backwards… I see my argument as being won, and thus, the conversation, as I see it, is over.

If you win all your arguments, you will have no friends. Don’t ask me who said it, I can’t remember. Besides, it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how many people you annoy in the process.

Sorry Jon Abad. I didn’t know about your condition. Your eyes must hurt.

Perhaps this last comment is a desperate attempt to provoke me into an unrelated discussion because you are too proud to admit that your original argument that “backwardness isn’t always bad” was, in fact, wrong and required a change of definition “By the way, by saying that backwardness is not always bad…”

That’s okay. I’ll help you.

Anita Clue: Yeah, my argument was a little off base. I had a slight misunderstanding of the definition of backwardness.
Mike D: no problem Anita. I really hate arguing but it bothers me greatly when people show ignorance to things like Metric.

There we go. Great job everyone.

Nicely done but that really doesn’t sound like me. Ok, Mike D. wins. Not that I care about winning anyway, but he probably likes hearing that he’s right. Most men do.

And that should be ignorance “of.” Grammer Goddess signing off…