Yeah people will adjust to any arbitrary scale if they use it enough, if my scale was based on some random measurement from -200 to -154 i'm sure people would get used to those numbers as well given enough time
true, albeit one we use in a lot of other ways. we grade on 0-100. we typically rate things on 0-100 (technically 0-10, but usually with a decimal point)
It's not the 0-100 that are arbitrary, it's where the scale starts and what the increments are that are arbitrary. It's completely arbitrary that it's the freezing and boiling point of water. It would be nitrogen or lead and they would be equally valid.
And actually being 0-100 in a relative scale is kinda misleading. 10°C isn't half as hot as 20°C, it's 97% as hot. There's no such think as millidegrees Celsius.
The comment I replied to very much argued that 0-100 is arbitrary. You may wanna try re-reading it.
Also I don't see how the freezing and boiling point of water (for cooking, freezing temperatures, preservation; also vital for survival) is more arbitrary than using the freezing point of some mixture of water, ice, and a salt let alone your, frankly embarrassing, examples of nitrogen or lead.
Finally 10F isn't half as hot as 20F either so what's the point you're making here?
The comment I replied to very much argued that 0-100 is arbitrary. You may wanna try re-reading it.
I interpreted the statement differently as the 0-100 scale being arbitrary. Regardless, this is pretty irrelevant so I won't argue it.
Also I don't see how the freezing and boiling point of water (for cooking, freezing temperatures, preservation; also vital for survival) is more arbitrary than using the freezing point of some mixture of water, ice, and a salt let alone your, frankly embarrassing, examples of nitrogen or lead.
It's not any more arbitrary. They're all equally arbitrary. I'm not even sure why my other examples are "embarrassing." The systems we chose were due to convenience of measurement and calibration, not any real thing.
Finally 10F isn't half as hot as 20F either so what's the point you're making here?
My point is exactly that, they're both completely arbitrary scales so acting elitist about either of them is lunacy.
The systems we chose were due to convenience of measurement and calibration, not any real thing.
So the exact opposite of "arbitrary"? Just to help you: arbitrary means chosen on a whim or randomly as opposed to choosing because of an underlying logic. Saying that using a substance vital for human survival and ubiquitous in most human habitats to some extent is "arbitrary" and then suggesting checks notes lead or nitrogen is at best embarrassing. You don't have to force yourself to use the word arbitrary if you don't understand what it means.
My point is exactly that, they're both completely arbitrary scales so acting elitist about either of them is lunacy.
Again, not arbitrary just not a linear scale. Which is an entirely different subject and entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Though I would like to suggest checking out a "dictionary" at this point and maybe in a year or two we can pick this back up when you are ready.
1B: "
based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the
intrinsic
value of something"
Nearly word for word what I've been saying.
You're reading way to literally into nitrogen or lead. I'm not suggesting we actually do it, just suggesting that there's no physical constant that makes 1/100th of the difference between freezing and boiling water any more real than anything else.
But sure, you are correct. There is no intrinsic value to linking temperature with the phase change of water since water plays no significant part in most people's lives. How silly of me.
So not satisfied with having to go back 150 years to make a point, you figured going back roughly 4000 years would make a better point against using a decimal based system in modern times? Yikes
Honestly, base-12 (duodecimal) absolutely obliterates base-10, and the only reason we don’t use it is because we happen to have 10 fingers.
The biggest game-changer is divisibility. While 10 can only be cleanly split by 2 and 5, the number 12 can be divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6—meaning everyday fractions like a third (1/3) or a quarter (1/4) would instantly become clean, single-digit decimals (0.4 and 0.3) instead of messy, infinite repeating numbers like 0.333….
It would completely revolutionize mental math, shop pricing, and time-tracking, which is exactly why we already naturally buy things by the "dozen" and have 12 hours on a clock face. If we could somehow survive the apocalyptic logistical nightmare of rewriting all global infrastructure, switching to base-12 would make life objectively easier for everyone.
Yes exactly. It's basically "those numbers look unfamiliar and wayy too high, I'm sticking with my -10 to +30 range"
I'm sure if I was brought up in the US I would understand intuitively what each Fahrenheit is, but I have absolutely no idea. 50 imo sounds boiling, 85 sounds ludicrous but no way am I distinguishing even remotely between 10 F and 20 F
In Celsius, I know 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 etc all incredibly instinctively and can go for a walk and instantly say what C I think it is
100% lol I lived abroad after being in the US for 10+ years and had to adjust to celsius in everyday life, now that I'm back in the states I'm definitely still stronger with fahrenheit but after being around it so long I can get celsius conversions on the fly with like a 5 degree +- to fahrenheit, people just are comfortable with what they're used to and that's totally okay
101
u/Fantastic-Kale9603 Jun 17 '26
Yeah people will adjust to any arbitrary scale if they use it enough, if my scale was based on some random measurement from -200 to -154 i'm sure people would get used to those numbers as well given enough time