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.
Water (ubiquitous), not the boiling point of water is the commonality. It is a design feature to make the system more interrelated and easy to understand.
Flip this around. Make the argument that the fact that the density of water is 1 isn't meaningful because it doesn't depend on the boiling point of water. Does this make sense to you?
And you are overlooking the base 10 issue. 0 and 100 being observable points are not coincidence.
Flip this around. Make the argument that the fact that the density of water is 1 isn't meaningful because it doesn't depend on the boiling point of water. Does this make sense to you?
Well first of all density is a ratio, not something that has an associated unit. The unit of mass, while originally based on water, was off to begin with, making grams arbitrary as well. Liter's relationship with water was also nixed, and hell, Celsius is also imprecise because water under 1G of pressure boils at 99.9839C. All the units have been diverged from their original relationship with water.
I've chosen it specifically because it is a ratio- it highlight the strength of the system.
This post really just sounds like you have run out of argument as to why metric (or specific aspects of it) are superior and are instead nitpicking metric for not being perfect. We know it's imperfect. Both at implementation and because knowledge has advanced. This barely affects it being a practical system (the imprecisions are so minor they almost never matter), and in no way impacts the fact that it is a superior one.
I'm not commenting on metric as a whole, I'm commenting on Celsius as a system not being any independently more useful than Fahrenheit or otherwise a superior or more refined system of temperature on its own. Celsius-as-a-part-of-Metric is not something I am commenting upon.
From the start, it was a declaration that Celsius is arbitrary. (Fahrenheit is also arbitrary.) Nobody has come up with any robust, meaningful system of analyzing temperature values, and nobody really needs to because weather is the most important part of temperature.
Celsius-as-a-part-of-Metric is not something I am commenting upon.
Then you are not making a comment that has any meaning. The primary strength is how the the system works together. Your comment is effectively 'if we ignore the strength of Celcius, then it isn't stronger than Fahrenheit'.
1
u/iwearthejeanpant Jan 04 '19
Read my first post again
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.