Sectorgame

Yeah, I know I went into a lot of irrelevent detail I just felt the urge to.

gary wrote:Metric is better because it calculates in powers of 10 (even numbers) while English is kind of backwards and hard to calculate since it doesn't use even numbers and has odd sounding terms like 'foot'. If you think about it, English measurements seem kind of cowboy/farmer (hick-like) with there naming scheme while metric seems sophisticated and scientific, even though it is much older.

Though I'm ingrained to imagine distances in miles or feet and not Kilometers or meters, I just imagine that 1 mile = about 1.5 km and 2/3 miles = 1km, though it is more like 0.6 miles = 1km. But it's easier to covert km into miles and vice versa in my head by thinking 2/3.

I heard that 1 foot actually represents the distance of each step Hercules took while walking in an Olympic game or something (History channel). So English measurement terms and distances are probably based heavily off of Greek and Roman history.

I should point out that it's not 'English', it is Imperial. English measurements would include such arcanities as shaftement, poppyseed and barelycorn as units of measurement, before the British empire introduced the Imperial standard in the 1800s.

You most likely perceive metric as better purely through using it more as it has become increasingly standardized.

Although maybe you should also call metric 'english' instead, as it was first described by an Englishman (about 200 years before Imperial measures were standardized)... or perhaps 'french', as it's the French who first adopted it as a standard system.

Anyways, Imperial measures are indeed based off of 'hick' stuff, as in terms of measurable objects; hence feet as a unit of measurement. I'm not sure that being derived from agriculture automatically entails stupid, though - my papa (grandfather on paternal side) was a farmer.

Try defining the length of something when you don't have a ruler - you either make an abstract guess, or use a comparative.

Of course, metric itself is based on similar principles - the metre was originally intended as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole - and taking its name from meteorology. But until you could actually make something precisely one metre long (and the first prototypes ended up being slightly short), it's a fairly meaningless abstract.

NB: try operating on metric time if you want to really compare the two systems... it makes the effect of being accustomed to certain units more obvious

(A quick check reveals that the origins of 'foot' as a unit of measurement, and especially as a standard, are rather fuzzy. Some place it being first used in Egypt and then adopted by Greeks - but nothing to do with Hercules. Rather hard to measure in mythological characters, after all. I think you need to check what TV programmes you're watching, as they sound full of crap)

What about this:

http://ellerbruch.nmu.edu/CS255/JONIEMI ... ystem.html

I just found this. Seems to be what that show was talking about but I forgot some of it and that it was saying that a foot was believed to be a measurment of Hercules foot. Might be true; might not be. Maybe the show and this just means it is one theory of the origin of 'foot'. Saying 'legend has it' indicated what you said about the origin of foot being fuzzy.

gary wrote:What about this:

http://ellerbruch.nmu.edu/CS255/JONIEMI ... ystem.html

I just found this. Seems to be what that show was talking about but I forgot some of it and that it was saying that a foot was believed to be a measurment of Hercules foot. Might be true; might not be. Maybe the show and this just means it is one theory of the origin of 'foot'. Saying 'legend has it' indicated what you said about the origin of foot being fuzzy.

It's a 15 year old website of an undergraduate student. I wouldn't hold much strength in it.

Snyways, how exactly would you form a metric based on hercules foot?

I just posted that link to show that there were other sources besides that tv program that talked about the Hercules' foot. I think the show was called "Clash of the Gods' on the history channel and the show wasn't saying it was the origin of foot but it could be or maybe just legend. I don't think that show talked in absolutes. It took a neutral view of the information, neither skeptical nor in favor of the belief, but tried to analyze these stories' connections to reality. Also, you said how would they form a metric based on Hercules foot? I don't know. The same way they do for other measurements and however they do that?

You clearly know a lot about the origins of measurements though, and that website does say that metric came from the French, like you indicated.

This might be correct:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0769529.html

You can let me know if you feel it is.

Why do all your sources look aimed at 8 year olds?

NB: they form units of measurement using reference objects of concepts. The point of a reference is that it has to exist. Hercules the half human, half god - and you may be shocked to hear this - did not exist.

I know the legend of Hercules, but he could have been just a normal human that the people misinterpreted as a half god/half human, therefore really existing but just exaggerated by the populous. A lot of things have at least a grain of truth to them. Also, it does make sense that they did use body parts to measure some units since they are called hand/foot, ect, and that website even mentions some objects that were used to base measurements off of, just as you say they were based off of objects.

Also, how can you know if a site is aimed at 8 year olds and not people of all ages? It doesn't have to be sophisticated or a big article to be truthful or aimed at people of all ages. I could say wikipedia is false or simply mistrust it because anyone can edit it, but it isn't according to The_E.

gary wrote:I know the legend of Hercules, but he could have been just a normal human that the people misinterpreted as a half god/half human, therefore really existing but just exaggerated by the populous. A lot of things have at least a grain of truth to them. Also, it does make sense that they did use body parts to measure some units since they are called hand/foot, ect, and that website even mentions some objects that were used to base measurements off of, just as you say they were based off of objects.

It's vastly, vastly more plausible that any attachment to Hercules was an attribution after the fact.

Let's be clear. The ancient greeks may have regarded their specific unit of feet as relating to Hercules, a form of cultural attribution making it relevant to them.

There is absolutely no chance, however, that the unit of length known as a foot bears any real relation to the mythical demigod.

Also, how can you know if a site is aimed at 8 year olds and not people of all ages? It doesn't have to be sophisticated or a big article to be truthful or aimed at people of all ages. I could say wikipedia is false or simply mistrust it because anyone can edit it, but it isn't according to The_E.

It's pretty simple. Articles intended to be scholarly or informative have a particular style, essentially plain, on the assumption the reader already has some interest.

Articles intended to appeal to children use particular graphical and language styles intended to grab their attention and gain interest - for example, being called 'fact monster' (exciting!) and having bright background colours. The presence of a 'homework' section on the front page is a clear giveaway, as a is a poll for 'What are your favorite new school supplies?'.

What you have to bear in mind that a childrens' site will only give a relative minimum of information about a topic, as this is all that is required for these levels of education.

I see; so the reason why we shouldn't trust those sites too much is because they are incomplete, even if the info is true, and that causes readers to misunderstand it as a result of insufficient information. The reason I chose the first page was because the 'Hercules foot' info was at the top of that web page, making it so that the people who clicked the link in this thread would read what I was referring to without having to search through the whole page and getting bored.

Silly me for not noticing the homework link and the surrounding stuff on that second page. If I paid more attention to that, I might not have asked how you could tell who the intended audience was. I focused too much on the content and not the appearance of the sidebar. I might have misunderstood you and thought you saying 'aimed at 8 year olds' meant 'aimed at ignorant people and the info lacking sophistication', but you meant it literally.

For once gary actually makes sense.

gary wrote:I see; so the reason why we shouldn't trust those sites too much is because they are incomplete, even if the info is true, and that causes readers to misunderstand it as a result of insufficient information. The reason I chose the first page was because the 'Hercules foot' info was at the top of that web page, making it so that the people who clicked the link in this thread would read what I was referring to without having to search through the whole page and getting bored.

Silly me for not noticing the homework link and the surrounding stuff on that second page. If I paid more attention to that, I might not have asked how you could tell who the intended audience was. I focused too much on the content and not the appearance of the sidebar. I might have misunderstood you and thought you saying 'aimed at 8 year olds' meant 'aimed at ignorant people and the info lacking sophistication', but you meant it literally.

Yeah. The problem - or the difference - between sites aimed at kids and sites aimed at adults is that the latter can be run on the presumption of interest and the former runs on the presumption it has to stimulate it. Which all too often means it's minimalistic and focuses on a single thing, rather than the full context, in the hope that the kids reading it will later want to go on and learn more.

That doesn't mean, however, that the information is false.

Matthew wrote:That doesn't mean, however, that the information is false.

True, true. But it does tend to increase the chances of it, because suddenly the author has a lot less incentive to fact check.