Dear Jim, Marcus, and All, I have interspersed some remarks.
> At 09:04 AM 24 June 2002 -0700, Ma Be wrote: >> Now, what happened here is perhaps the real crux of the question. Why is >> it that these "professionals" (media people) seem to *notably* "not fall >> in line" with other types of professionals, like scientists, for instance, >> when it comes to writing SI units? And I'm not talking about "literary >> stuff", Jim, since there simply cannot be any "literary" value in using >> 500ml instead of 500 ml, for instance... ;-) However, 500l and 500L are about literary stuff since the meaning is potentially changed, whereas with 500�l and 500�L the potential for misinterpretation is reduced to near zero. > I think some of you non-USA people need to address this question. Your > countries have been metric for (in some cases) decades, and yet your > companies put out products with "improper" metric labeling, and your media > frequently use metric improperly. Several issues come to my mind here. Writers and editors have been brought up using dictionaries. They believe that dictionary definitions are correct and that they are suitable for defining the words they use. In discussions with journalists I have often been struck by their inability to understand � even hostility toward � definitions that are derived from standards. The BIPM definition of (say) the metre leaves them cold. Many journalists are actively hostile to fixed definitions of words as they then do not have the freedom to vary their subtle flavors to suit their current article. Compare the physical definition of the word 'power' and then watch how a journalist likes to use the word 'power' in an article on electrical energy. Journalists feel that scientists and engineers are attempting to restrict the meanings of words, and remove their free-flowing freedom, without any identifiable reason. Journalists see themselves as nearer poetic, rather than as precise, users of language. Journalist often have anti-scientific attitudes and anti-mathematical attitudes that have been deeply embedded into their psches since mid-primary school. Partly I believe that this is attributable to issues related to dictionary vs standards definitions that I mentioned above and partly, I believe, it is due to fundamental innumeracy. In about mid-primary schooling there occurs a division between those who can write and those who can count, and each camp proceeds to develop their 'good' skills at the expense of their other skills. > If you have a generation or two of people who have grown up with metric, > who have (presumably) been taught proper metric usage in school, then why > is there so much improper use of the metric system in these countries? I wish that we had 'been taught proper metric usage in school', but in Australia this has not been the case. The Australian experience is that 'metrication' went with a bang in the 1970s. Metrication officially began with the formation of the Metric Conversion Board, in 1970, and stopped with the incorporation of the responsibilities of that Board into a government department, in about 1980. The overwhelming influence of the Australian Government on metrication, since 1980, has been an overwhelming silence. In education the original 'metrication' was not well done. In particular Australian education did not clearly set 'metrication' goals and training programs were limited. Without clear goals teachers simply adopted a metric system by themselves (individually). Let me put this into perspective. Where I live, in the state of Victoria, most teachers, and in particular almost all primary teachers, adopted the cgs system with centimetres and grams as the key components. As late as 1996 there was no recommendation to Victorian schools that they should adopt SI. In fact a Victorian Education Department document as late as 1996 recommended the use of the MKSA metric system; and an Australian Government curriculum document, published in 2002, had no mention of SI � or any other metric system. > And don't try to blame this one on the USA: having colloquial-labeled > products "invade" your country does not magically translate to causing > improper metric usage. I wouldn't think of laying general blame on the USA for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, except perhaps in one area � computer hardware and software. I have railed against the USA dominated computer industry's perpetration of old units of measure before. They have not only promoted ifp units but also they have even created 'old' units such as the computer point (1/72nd of an inch exactly) to further obfuscate measurement issues. One can only feel sorry for those who have to work in the computer industry, which often appears to be a standards-free zone. However, having got that off my chest, I think one of the prime causes of lack of metrication success has simply been the lack of clear goals. In an educational setting I would recommend something like: The Education Department of xx state xx will use the International System of Units (SI) only; the International System of Units will be the version freely available from www.bipm.fr. SI will be used in all classes, for all building work, and for all administrative purposes. Thanks for the opportunity to develop some thoughts on these issues. I will give them some further thought and maybe take some of them up with the relevant Australian education authorities. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia
