You’re missing the point. The scale is what matters, not your personal experience or unit preference. From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help. In C, that’s -18-38. That’s a much more limited range in terms of human tolerance, but it works great for water, which would be 0-100 C. The scale doesn’t translate as well to K, but it does end at 0, so there’s that.
Try telling a northern siberian, who commonly see winter temperatures between -50 and -100 fahrenheit, that 0f is right about the limit for a human to tolerate…
You think those people go out without thick, warm clothes? I get you’re really committed to arguing for C against people not even arguing against it, but come on now. You know what I’m saying. It’s not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
You wouldn’t tolerate 0 farenheit in the nude either.
You wouldn’t tolerate 10 farenheit for extended periods either.
I know what you are saying and I disagree.
I am not trying to say celsius is better than farenheit, I’m saying farenheit is not in any way intrinsically more human than celsius.
0 farenheit was chosen because that’s the temperature of salty ice, The lowest temperature they could easily achieve at the time, it has nothing to do with what humans can and can’t endure.
Exactly. And you’re not even pointing out that the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius! So a significant portion of the time, you’re going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.
Edit
To clarify, I am not arguing that Fahrenheit is a better scale in general. I’m simply saying that it’s human-centric. Celsius is perfectly usable for human purposes, and also much more useful than Fahrenheit for scientific purposes. I’m just explaining how the meme makes sense to me
the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius!
That makes no sense to me at all. what frame of reference?
what happens at -18? Ive been out in temperatures both above and below that, yes its cold as fuck, but nothing special happens? If we move a bit further north here they’d call me a wuss, and tell me real cold starts at -30.
you’re going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.
I find that really useful actually! Our world is made of water. In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.
if the temperature was above 0 but has now dipped into the negatives, beware of ice when walking or driving.
You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.
The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with
Don’t play dumb. We’re talking about the range of temperatures an average person experiences in their day-to-day lives.
In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.
This might blow your mind but you can do the same thing with Fahrenheit. Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.
You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.
The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with
I never said otherwise and I totally agree.
However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons. Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life while Celsius is more suitable for science.
Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas.
Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.
And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.
Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.
You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.
but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way.
As you might imagine I completely disagree.
For my purposes 20’s, 30’s, negative 10’s and so on is perfectly good, and I would describe my purposes as human.
Again, this is based on your, and my, learned reference points. Of course you feel the scale of the farenheit is better suited for describing your life, those are your learned reference points.
I have my own learned reference points based on the Celsius scale I grew up with and, suprise suprise, to me they’re superior.
So your position is that whatever we are taught as children, we naturally consider superior. I strive to be more of a free thinker.
It’s patently obvious that having 16 versus 8 gradations to describe an appropriate temperature range is superior. But you can’t even accept that minor concession.
Yet you fail miserably. Arguing your deeply learned arbitrary system is better than other peoples deeply learned arbitrary system.
It’s patently obvious that having 16 versus 8 gradations to describe an appropriate temperature range is superior. But you can’t even accept that minor concession.
I can’t, 1 degree C is all the accuracy I’ve ever needed, for anything honestly.
My position is both systems are arbitrary, both systems have ranges appropriate for humans, both systems have all the accuracy most people would ever need. I haven’t seen any actual objective arguments to the contrary. Lots of qualia arguments mind you, but none objective.
To be clear, I’m not saying people are wrong to use C. People can use any unit they want for all I care. I’m just clarifying the point of the main post.
You’re missing the point. The scale is what matters, not your personal experience or unit preference. From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help. In C, that’s -18-38. That’s a much more limited range in terms of human tolerance, but it works great for water, which would be 0-100 C. The scale doesn’t translate as well to K, but it does end at 0, so there’s that.
Yet people live in negative farenheit conditions.
Try telling a northern siberian, who commonly see winter temperatures between -50 and -100 fahrenheit, that 0f is right about the limit for a human to tolerate…
Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.
You think those people go out without thick, warm clothes? I get you’re really committed to arguing for C against people not even arguing against it, but come on now. You know what I’m saying. It’s not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
You wouldn’t tolerate 0 farenheit in the nude either.
You wouldn’t tolerate 10 farenheit for extended periods either.
I know what you are saying and I disagree. I am not trying to say celsius is better than farenheit, I’m saying farenheit is not in any way intrinsically more human than celsius.
0 farenheit was chosen because that’s the temperature of salty ice, The lowest temperature they could easily achieve at the time, it has nothing to do with what humans can and can’t endure.
Whatever mate. I’m not here to argue you out of whatever tunnel your stuck in. Good luck with that.
The fuck does this mean
Exactly. And you’re not even pointing out that the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius! So a significant portion of the time, you’re going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.
Edit
To clarify, I am not arguing that Fahrenheit is a better scale in general. I’m simply saying that it’s human-centric. Celsius is perfectly usable for human purposes, and also much more useful than Fahrenheit for scientific purposes. I’m just explaining how the meme makes sense to me
That makes no sense to me at all. what frame of reference? what happens at -18? Ive been out in temperatures both above and below that, yes its cold as fuck, but nothing special happens? If we move a bit further north here they’d call me a wuss, and tell me real cold starts at -30.
I find that really useful actually! Our world is made of water. In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.
if the temperature was above 0 but has now dipped into the negatives, beware of ice when walking or driving.
You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.
The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with
Don’t play dumb. We’re talking about the range of temperatures an average person experiences in their day-to-day lives.
This might blow your mind but you can do the same thing with Fahrenheit. Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.
I never said otherwise and I totally agree.
However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons. Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life while Celsius is more suitable for science.
Now you are almost arguing against yourself, I can use the same argument about body temperature, just look for 37 instead of 100
And this is a pro for me where I live.
These don’t square.
Celsius and farenheit is just as suitable for daily life. You learn your important reference points and go from there.
Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.
And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.
Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.
You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.
As you might imagine I completely disagree.
For my purposes 20’s, 30’s, negative 10’s and so on is perfectly good, and I would describe my purposes as human.
Again, this is based on your, and my, learned reference points. Of course you feel the scale of the farenheit is better suited for describing your life, those are your learned reference points.
I have my own learned reference points based on the Celsius scale I grew up with and, suprise suprise, to me they’re superior.
So your position is that whatever we are taught as children, we naturally consider superior. I strive to be more of a free thinker.
It’s patently obvious that having 16 versus 8 gradations to describe an appropriate temperature range is superior. But you can’t even accept that minor concession.
Yet you fail miserably. Arguing your deeply learned arbitrary system is better than other peoples deeply learned arbitrary system.
I can’t, 1 degree C is all the accuracy I’ve ever needed, for anything honestly.
My position is both systems are arbitrary, both systems have ranges appropriate for humans, both systems have all the accuracy most people would ever need. I haven’t seen any actual objective arguments to the contrary. Lots of qualia arguments mind you, but none objective.
To be clear, I’m not saying people are wrong to use C. People can use any unit they want for all I care. I’m just clarifying the point of the main post.
Totally, same. This thread was started by OPs reply
That was what triggered my response, otherwise I probably woulda just upvoted and kept scrolling.