• FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        I strive to be more of a free thinker.

        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.