Subj: "Re: miles, yards, feet, acres"  ... (sci.math - 21jan2000)
  From:  Nico Benschop                    -- ("Tradition vs Modern")
----
"Benjamin P. Carter" wrote:
>
> Dan Smith  replies to my post with several
>    comments, most of which, like the following, are merely
>    irrelevant and pointless:
>
> > Yes, it is charming, kind of like that eccentric aunt/uncle who
> > comes over and is "charming" at first, but after three weeks you
> > want him/her out of your f***ing house.
> > Traditional?  That's a reason?
>
> The answer is yes: sometimes that is a reason.  For example, in a
> court of law, it makes a difference if there is a precedent in a
> similar case. Other things being equal, it is better to preserve
> traditions than to abandon them.  Of course there are exceptions:
>
> > This may be an extreme example, but the widespread enslavement
> > of African people for centuries was a "tradition". Sometimes our
> > traditions are the very things that need to go in a hurry.
>
> Yes, sometimes, but not always.  Not even most of the time.
> Dan Smith continues by asking if metrication would be
>
> > Almost an expensive as adhering to an Imperial
> > system with units that are inconsistent with themselves?
>
> Why not let private industry and individuals make decisions based on
> their own comparisons of the costs involved?  Since when does the
> government know what's best for carpenters, auto manufacturers, et al.?
>
> Next, Dan Smith asks a really dumb question which isn't even original:
>
> > Quickly, what is the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight?
>
> [...]  To my comments about townships, he admits ignorance:
>
> > Even if this is true (I suspect that, if it is, it's only true for
> > certain parts of the U.S. east coast), ...
>
> and then proceeds to argue with me, instead of visiting a library to
> get his facts straight.
>
> [silly arguments and insults snipped] --   Ben Carter

An interesting discussion, of 'tradition' vs. 'modern & efficient'.
Well, I guess it all depends on your (not mentioned;-) goals.

If you consider the human race to be racing to its own destruction,
generating pollution at an unbelievable rate - choking not only itself
but also the rest of the biosphere (animals & plants), then the
inefficiency of a chaotic plurality of traditional units is a
blessing in disguise, saving us from ourselves... slow down please.
(zo niet goedschiks dan kwaadschiks;-)

On the other hand, if you are an industrial powerful nation, with outmoded
oldfashioned system(s) of units - in fear of losing the lead to faster
and more efficient emerging economies, then indeed a single and rational
set of units (as the metric & decimal system) is the best, and worth
dropping traditions for, no matter how 'rustic' (rusty?-) and romantic...

My suspicion is that Benjamin is just driving you efficient_lot
"up_the_cupboard", playing devils advocate... Unless he realy is fed-up
with that self destructive rat race, which we call modern technology and
economy (really:
   *What* does 'economy' mean else than "keeping each other busy" ?-)
   Can't we do it in some pleasant way, please, rather than driving
each other -and the rest of this planet- over the cliff ?

-- Ciao, Nico Benschop


 Re: earth to math...

  Subj:  "Re: earth to math..."      (sci.math 21jan2000)
Author:   Nico Benschop              ("Continuous vs. Discrete")
--------
achava@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <388145DB.7011AC7E@coax.net>,
>   David King  wrote:
> > [...]
> >      or that avoidance of them leads to all kinds of spurious
> > dichotomies between discrete and continuous, sum and integral?
>
> [...]  Nonetheless, I see a real dichotomy between
>        the discrete and the continuous.  [*]
> [...]   -- Regards, Achava.
>

[*] So do I: "never the twain shall meet" ;-)

I'm convinced it is one of the sharpest divisions in styles of
scientific / mathematic thinking, or: modeling / reasoning about the
world we're in. Almost a matter of 'taste'... about which it is useless
to argue. Most people are drawn to one or the other, very few feel
comfortable with both (although a balanced approach needs both):
            atoms & fields
        particles & waves
         integers & reals
    combinatorics & statistics
 diophantine_eqns & calculus
           Fermat & Cantor
          digital & analog
           finite & infinite
         individu & mass
              ... &c
--
Ciao, Nico Benschop -- http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/filosofy.htm
                       http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/math-use.htm

AHA: One is Always Halfway Anyway ... ( principle of Dynamic Balance )
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1.1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx