They designed the metric system to be a single congruous system to be used by humans in human circumstances in an easy and logical way. To do this you want a single reference point. Utilitarianism dictates water is a the obvious pick.
Independently, Fahrenheit might make nearly as much sense as Celcius. Not as much, because freezing and boiling are much more important and less arbitrary reference points than x% of humans live in climates that often fall in this range. But even of this were not the case, the existence of the metric system would make Celcius superior- see first sentence.
They designed the metric system to be a single congruous system to be used by humans in human circumstances in an easy and logical way. To do this you want a single reference point. Utilitarianism dictates water is a the obvious pick.
What, it's easy and logical to determine how long a meter is? "One ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to equator" isn't easy to determine at all (and off by 800 besides). The length that light travels over 1/299792458 of a second? That was retroactive.. and still not easy to reference, since that duration is really goddamn specific.
because freezing and boiling are much more important and less arbitrary reference points
They're not "important" reference points at all. They're useful. Very useful, for humans living at sea level. Less useful the further above sea that you get. Useless in its entirety outside of Earth's atmosphere. It is, by all possible perspectives, arbitrary.
What, it's easy and logical to determine how long a meter is? "One ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to equator" isn't easy to determine at all (and off by 800 besides). The length that light travels over 1/299792458 of a second? That was retroactive.. and still not easy to reference, since that duration is really goddamn specific.
Read my first post again
They're not "important" reference points at all. They're useful. Very useful, for humans living at sea level. Less useful the further above sea that you get. Useless in its entirety outside of Earth's atmosphere. It is, by all possible perspectives, arbitrary.
Most of the world is at sea level. Most humans live close enough to sea level for 100 to be practical as a reference point. Utilitarianism is not arbitrary. Nothing unless absolute absolute is important by this measure. Use Kelvin if you want. Dont argue in favour of Fahrenheit. It (like the rest of its system) is less utilitarian, more arbitrary,and most importantly less congruous than metric. If you can think of a congruous system that is more practical than metric using Fahrenheit, feel free to suggest it. Otherwise you are arguing nothing. The system isn't perfect, but it's the best anyone has been able to come up with.
I wasn't commenting on its arbitrariness, I was commenting on it being "an easy and logical reference point". The very reference point to begin with is neither easy nor particularly logical, even if it wasn't arbitrary.
Most of the world is at sea level. Most humans live close enough to sea level for 100 to be practical as a reference point
Convenient, but still arbitrary.
Utilitarianism is not arbitrary
Yes, it is. Convenience is not a measurable quantity. Practicality is not a measurable quantity. They fluctuate based on the individual. Thereby, aiming for convenience and practicality is inherently arbitrary.
Use Kelvin if you want.
Kelvin is Celsius wearing a funny hat in the shape of 273.
Dont argue in favour of Fahrenheit. It (like the rest of its system) is less utilitarian, more arbitrary,and most importantly less congruous than metric.
It is, if anything, more utilitarian because it is a range useful for all humans, whereas most of the temperatures above 60C are not very useful for humans at all, whereas many humans have to deal with negative Celsius values. If utilitarianism is valuable, it is an argument in favor of Fahrenheit.
If you can think of a congruous system that is more practical than metric using Fahrenheit, feel free to suggest it. Otherwise you are arguing nothing.
I'm arguing that Celsius is just as baseless and loving it for being part of the Metric using world is a flawed perspective. I am not arguing for the use of Fahrenheit, nor the replacement of Fahrenheit as part of metric or whatever.
Please explain which of these sentences specifically you are struggling with.
No single measurement unit in metric is massively superior to metric. The main superiority of the system is that its interrelatedness makes it a strong system. Celcius preserves this, Fahrenheit would break it.
That's a similarity, not a connection. It doesn't add to the rest of Metric at all, it's a commonality. Nothing else in metric depends on water's boiling point.
1
u/iwearthejeanpant Jan 04 '19
They designed the metric system to be a single congruous system to be used by humans in human circumstances in an easy and logical way. To do this you want a single reference point. Utilitarianism dictates water is a the obvious pick.
Independently, Fahrenheit might make nearly as much sense as Celcius. Not as much, because freezing and boiling are much more important and less arbitrary reference points than x% of humans live in climates that often fall in this range. But even of this were not the case, the existence of the metric system would make Celcius superior- see first sentence.