> That one's easy to answer; Imperial is indeed more imprecise. ... Where Imperial falls apart completely is in its total lack of scalability. ... In designing a dilution series, it's not even possible to subdivide an ounce that finely.

Such absurd, irrational statements! While the prefixes of metric are convenient shorthand, they are entirely unnecessary. Scientific notation works without regard to unit, and all units are (theoretically) capable of infinite subdivision. It's analogous to arguing that a base-10 system can reach higher numbers than a base-9 system.

> Wolf "thinks SI goes hand in hand with an education in science and medicine; and in The Big Picture, educating people is the one earthly resource that makes even the poorest of nations strong." spirit

Both systems are rightly taught to US students, as the purpose of education is to educate. Saying metric is more consistent is correct, and its most valuable trait. Saying metric is more logical or more scientific is silly. Saying metric is inherently better shows that the "public grows more and more out of touch with an intuitive understanding of basic concepts in the science behind all the technological toys, and marvels, which we handle every day." All measurement systems are abstract representations, and all of the arguments always come down to ease of use. Whichever system a person is accustomed to is the easiest.

As gremlinn said, if a catastrophe happened and the capital invested in customary were destroyed, people would almost certainly start over with metric or another decimal based system because of its consistency.

> Ah yes, the final bottom line is not one of freedom of choice, but of "stupendous capital cost."

Actually, the cost argument is the minor one, and that of freedom of choice the greater. It seems like we keep running into a difference of basic political philosophy. On one hand is statism, coercing people to live a predefined Happy Quiet Good Life, and on the other is liberty, leaving such trivia as measurement systems to the people it concerns.

Summary:

Myth #1) Customary is less precise/scientific/logical.

It can measure anything metric can and some things metric can't.

Myth #2) Customary is harder to use.

It is harder to learn. Ease of use is totally relative to experience.

Myth #3) Customary is out of date.

It's being used right now. In any case, time and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.

Myth #4) Metric is stealing our heritage and ought to be fought.

There are better things to worry about.

Myth #5) The U.S. is the only country that uses customary.

Countries don't use measuring systems; people do. Everyone except for unfortunate folk under a few domineering European governments may use any system they like, even make up their own. In any case, the users of measuring systems and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.

Myth #6) Customary perpetuates ignorance.

Measuring systems are used to measure, not to reach a goal of Enlightenment.

Myth #7) A few militant Metric Nazis are really uptight about other people in other places doing things another way.

OK, this isn't a myth. But European cultures' superiority complexes are nothing new.

gab"Don't tread on me"by