Comment on temperature
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 9 months agoMy argument is actually pretty simple, but people could always challenge these assertions, in which case it would get much more complicated.
A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans
Celsius and Kelvin do not. Celsius is adequate because it’s based on water, and all life on earth is also based on water, so it’s not totally out of our wheelhouse. But for humans specifically I think Fahrenheit is the clear answer.
One point that many may overlook is that most of us here are relatively smart and educated. There are a good number people on this planet who just aren’t very good with numbers. Obviously a genius could easily adapt their mind to Kelvin or whatever.
But Fahrenheit is the temperature scale of the proletariat, the working man, the average Joe. And I’m here for it.
Unskilled5117@feddit.de 9 months ago
Multiple problems with you assertions.
You know that Celsius uses decimals for everything, so really not much difference. Furthermore the granularity of Fahrenheit doesn‘t have any advantages. You won‘t be able to feel wether its 70°F or 71°F outside, nor if you’ve got a fever of 101°F or 102°F. You need to look at a thermometer. And please don‘t reply saying that decimals are complicated. The majority of the planet, except certain Countries seem to manage just fine. Would be quite laughable if one certain country thinks it‘s too complicated.
Not really sure what you are referencing. I think it just stems from you growing up with Fahrenheit, so not feeling comfortable with anything else.
I mean the “proletariat” of the majority of the world uses Celsius.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Read some of my other comments. 0-100 is more intuitive than -18-38, no? None of you have even been willing to admit that simple fact yet.
Agree to disagree.
Unskilled5117@feddit.de 9 months ago
Well because it stands on a false promise. Neither 0°F = the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride nor 100°F has any „real“ meaning. The other limit established was his best estimate of the average human body temperature, originally set at 90 °F, then 96 °F . How is that intuitive.
If you are refering to negative degrees, quite useful for telling how the weather is going to be. And to prevent the „negative numbers are hard“-Argument. It seems to work for the majority of people.
For the human bodytemperature argument often throw around: they are inconsiquential numbers in both systems.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
It’s not about the specific numbers, but the range that they cover. It’s about the relation of the scale to our lived experience. Hypothetically, if you wanted to design a temperature scale around our species, you would assign the range of 0-100 to the range that would be the most frequently utilized, because those are the shortest numbers. It’s not an absolute range, but the middle of a bell curve which covers 95% of practical scenarios that people encounter. It doesn’t make any sense to start that range at some arbitrary value like 1000 or -18.
When the temperature starts to go above the human body temperature, most humans cannot survive in those environments. Thus, they would have little reason to describe such a temperature. Celsius wastes many double digit numbers between 40-100 that are rarely used. Instead, it forces you to use more negative numbers.
This winter, many days were in the 10s and 20s where I live. Using Celsius would have been marginally more inconvenient in those scenarios, which happen every winter. This is yet another benefit of Fahrenheit, it has a set of base 10 divisions that can be easily communicated, allowing for a convenient level of uncertainty when describing a temperature.