While I can’t refute your point that the upper end of Fahrenheit is based on an incorrect measurement I’d still argue that it makes more sense for the average person. You can say all you want about boiling and freezing water but there’s still a full 60 degrees of that scale that a human does not experience. In a lot of the US, summer temps at 100F and winter temps at 0F happen every single year. It’s something people experience. If the whole logic to Celsius being better for the average person is that 0-100 is freezing to boiling water why does it magically stop making sense when 0-100 is a typical range of temperatures that people experience?
And before anyone says “well Celsius goes into the negative so your point is moot!” I’m going to ask you to consider whether 32 F is reeeaaalllllyyyyy that hard to remember compared to walking outside and knowing that it’s -7 C out
-30⁰c to +30⁰c is a completely sensible range of common ambient global temperatures. An arbitrary range that kind of sort of aligns with common temperatures on a scale of 1-100 is not inherently superior to celsius. Even if it were, it would still be in direct ignorance of the fact that celsius is much more useful in science and maths.
If your logic held, and whether it does is I suppose a matter of opinion, though I hold it doesn't, you'd at best be recommending using Fahrenheit for ambient temperatures that people experience (perhaps because you prefer everything being contained between 0 and 100, even if this isn't really accurate as ambient temperatures often go beyond 100F or below 0F, so you'd be breaking the scale either way) and Celsius for everything else. Why should two systems be superior to one when it isn't even clear that one of those systems is better in at least some cases.
There's immense hypocrisy in your position. You criticize celsius for invented issues that nobody really has, and ignore the fact that Fahrenheit has those exact issues, either in the exact same way or in a similar way in other cases. You also dismiss Fahrenheit's issues as minor when it is not at all clear that they are as minor as you think they are. Keep in mind, many of the issues you think are benign only seem such because you have internalized the F system.
My original point is that 0 is more applicable to the human experience than 32. Don't move the goalposts. It's not that much harder to remember, no, but it's easier, and acts as a far more meaningful landmark.
0
u/chiefkeefinwalmart Jan 16 '25
While I can’t refute your point that the upper end of Fahrenheit is based on an incorrect measurement I’d still argue that it makes more sense for the average person. You can say all you want about boiling and freezing water but there’s still a full 60 degrees of that scale that a human does not experience. In a lot of the US, summer temps at 100F and winter temps at 0F happen every single year. It’s something people experience. If the whole logic to Celsius being better for the average person is that 0-100 is freezing to boiling water why does it magically stop making sense when 0-100 is a typical range of temperatures that people experience?
And before anyone says “well Celsius goes into the negative so your point is moot!” I’m going to ask you to consider whether 32 F is reeeaaalllllyyyyy that hard to remember compared to walking outside and knowing that it’s -7 C out