Fahrenheit is also based on water’s phase changes, but the 0-100 range just falls nicely around the range of common ambient temperatures. The basis in water is nice because it’s abundant and thus makes calibration of a thermometer easy. My contention is merely that the specific values of the phase changes are not so important that it makes the Celsius scale inherently better. I like that the ambient temperatures outside fall nicely throughout the 0-100 range in Fahrenheit, and I think that is just as valid an argument as water being liquid within this range.
And perhaps I’m particularly swayed by this argument because I live in a place that has cold winters and hot summers, so I see the full range of 0 to 100 in the weather. I’m also not going to pretend that growing up using Fahrenheit is not the main reason for my continuing usage of it.
I just wanted to point out that I’m convinced by the arguments in favor of the metric system for everything except Celsius. For that one, I just don’t think water is as compelling an argument as is always presented.
The water argument gets brought up all the time because it’s the only argument present on on either side.
After that, you are simply arguing about which number you would rather see, which is a pointless argument to have. You like 0 to 100, I like negative numbers, so I would rather use -18 to 38. Arguing one or the other is like arguing if grey or beige is the “better” colour.
Fahrenheit is also based on water’s phase changes,
Exactly: It puts 180 degrees between boiling and frozen, as though they were opposite conditions or something.
It’s set at 32 instead of 0 because 0 is the temperature of the most stable frigorific mixture they knew of. If you don’t have access to a reliable thermometer for your lab, the thermometer you make and calibrate with Fahrenheit’s brine method is going to be more accurate than the one you make for Celsius’s freezing/boiling method.
Fahrenheit is also based on water’s phase changes, but the 0-100 range just falls nicely around the range of common ambient temperatures. The basis in water is nice because it’s abundant and thus makes calibration of a thermometer easy. My contention is merely that the specific values of the phase changes are not so important that it makes the Celsius scale inherently better. I like that the ambient temperatures outside fall nicely throughout the 0-100 range in Fahrenheit, and I think that is just as valid an argument as water being liquid within this range.
And perhaps I’m particularly swayed by this argument because I live in a place that has cold winters and hot summers, so I see the full range of 0 to 100 in the weather. I’m also not going to pretend that growing up using Fahrenheit is not the main reason for my continuing usage of it.
I just wanted to point out that I’m convinced by the arguments in favor of the metric system for everything except Celsius. For that one, I just don’t think water is as compelling an argument as is always presented.
The water argument gets brought up all the time because it’s the only argument present on on either side.
After that, you are simply arguing about which number you would rather see, which is a pointless argument to have. You like 0 to 100, I like negative numbers, so I would rather use -18 to 38. Arguing one or the other is like arguing if grey or beige is the “better” colour.
Exactly: It puts 180 degrees between boiling and frozen, as though they were opposite conditions or something.
It’s set at 32 instead of 0 because 0 is the temperature of the most stable frigorific mixture they knew of. If you don’t have access to a reliable thermometer for your lab, the thermometer you make and calibrate with Fahrenheit’s brine method is going to be more accurate than the one you make for Celsius’s freezing/boiling method.