• imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Let me explain. Anything below 0F is really cold for a human, and anything above 100F is really hot. The Fahrenheit scale was built around human biology.

    0C isn’t even that cold, and 100C is literally instant death. Thus, Celsius is less applicable to the human experience and more applicable to the physical properties of water. The typical range of human scale temperatures is like -10 to 40 degrees on the Celsius scale? Makes no sense.

    Kelvin is the most scientifically objective scale, but also the least intuitive for humans, because absolute zero is completely outside our frame of reference.

    So it’s easily demonstrable that Fahrenheit is how people feel, Celsius is how water feels, and Kelvin is how molecules feel.

    Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill, and any challenges to my position will result in increasingly large walls of text until you have conceded the point 😤

    main arguments from below

    Celsius is adequate because it’s based on water, and all life on earth is also based on water, so it’s not totally out of our wheelhouse. But for humans specifically I think Fahrenheit is the clear answer.

    One point that many may overlook is that most of us here are relatively smart and educated. There are a good number of people on this planet who just aren’t very good with numbers. Obviously a genius could easily adapt their mind to Kelvin or whatever.

    You have to use negative numbers more frequently with Celsius > Celsius has a less intuitive frame of reference

    Each Celsius degree is nearly two Fahrenheit degrees > Celsius is less granular

    The reason I argue the more granular Fahrenheit is more intuitive is because a one degree change should intuitively be quite minor. But since you only have like 40 or 50 degrees to describe the entire gamut of human experiences with Celsius, it blends together a bit too much. I know that people will say to use decimals, but its the same flaw as negative numbers. It’s simply unintuitive and cumbersome.

    B) 66F is room temperature. Halfway between freezing (32F) and 100F.

    the intuition is learned and not natural.

    All scales have to be learned, obviously. It’s far easier to create intuitive anchorpoints in a 0-100 system than a -18 to 38 system. Thus, Fahrenheit is more intuitive for the average person.

    I should note that if you are a scientist, the argument completely changes. If you are doing experiments and making calcualtions across a much wider range of temperatures, Celsius and Kelvin are much more intuitive. But we are talking about the average human experience, and for that situation, I maintain Fahrenheit supremacy


    Final edit: Well, I got what I asked for. I think I ended up making some pretty irrefutable points with these two last ones though. Once again, math saves the day. If somebody wants to continue the discussion make another thread and tag me because this is a bit much for science memes.

    further arguments

    It’s not about the specific numbers, but the range that they cover. It’s about the relation of the scale to our lived experience. Hypothetically, if you wanted to design a temperature scale around our species, you would assign the range of 0-100 to the range that would be the most frequently utilized, because those are the shortest numbers. It’s not an absolute range, but the middle of a bell curve which covers 95% of practical scenarios that people encounter. It doesn’t make any sense to start that range at some arbitrary value like 1000 or -18.

    When the temperature starts to go above the human body temperature, most humans cannot survive in those environments. Thus, they would have little reason to describe such a temperature. Celsius wastes many double digit numbers between 40-100 that are rarely used. Instead, it forces you to use more negative numbers.

    This winter, many days were in the 10s and 20s where I live. Using Celsius would have been marginally more inconvenient in those scenarios, which happen every winter. This is yet another benefit of Fahrenheit, it has a set of base 10 divisions that can be easily communicated, allowing for a convenient level of uncertainty when describing a temperature.

    the end is nigh

    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.

    • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      100C is literally instant death.

      Laughs in Finnish (while sipping beer in a 100C Sauna)

    • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The Fahrenheit scale was built around human biology.

      Nope, it was built around the highest and lowest extremes some dude could create in his room. Not based on human biology in the slightest. Don’t repeat this false information.

      0C isn’t even that cold, and 100C is literally instant death.

      Yeah, but counter argument, who gives a shit? The “meme” doesn’t say anything remotely close to “from 0 to 100”. I don’t know why you are under the impression that these scales become inaccurate if you leave the 0-100 range. I live in a region that frequents -40C to +40C over a year- that’s centered on zero, so it’s already better for “how humans feel” than being centered on 32 and pretending there is some cosmic/celestial/god ordained reason for it.

      Kelvin is the most scientifically objective scale, but also the least intuitive for humans…

      Still no one giving a shit- the “meme” doesn’t remotely even suggest anything related to this.

      Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill

      I don’t know why you sign this off with “I’m an obnoxious twat”, but I’m perfectly happy with using the block function if the threat is real.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

        B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

        Celsius and Kelvin do not.

        I don’t want to fight about this I just think it’s actually true, and I also think Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.

        • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

          B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

          true.

          Celsius […] do not.

          false.

          Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.

          Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill, and any challenges to my position will result in increasingly large walls of text until you have conceded the point 😤

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Thoughts?

            spoiler

            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.

            • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              copy pasting now are we? here was my response to the same copied comment:

              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
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                copy pasting now are we?

                You replied to me on multiple different threads, so I didn’t realize you were the same person. Generally if you’re serious about a debate, it’s best to keep things to one comment chain. Otherwise you’re just kinda yelling at somebody.

        • uienia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Unlike Americans, celsius and kelvin users are not afraid of decimals, which fullfills all your graularity needs if you have them. But mostly it isn’t even needed because you literally cannot feel the difference.

        • eldain@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          A) So is Celsius, you do everything in double digits until you turn on your oven.

          B) If 50F was actually room temperature (the middle of too hot and too cold), I could agree. The fact that is is not means for me the intuition is learned and not natural. And that I have to learn a few anchorpoints to convert my own intuition when I ever visit the US.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Idk how your A relates to mine, if anything that’s more about the frame of reference, not the granularity. It’s good that you rarely have to use triple digits, but you do have to use negative numbers quite frequently.

            You have to use negative numbers more frequently with Celsius > Celsius has a less intuitive frame of reference

            Each Celsius degree is nearly two Fahrenheit degrees > Celsius is less granular

            The reason I argue the more granular Fahrenheit is more intuitive is because a one degree change should intuitively be quite minor. But since you only have like 40 or 50 degrees to describe the entire gamut of human experiences with Celsius, it blends together a bit too much. I know that people will say to use decimals, but its the same flaw as negative numbers. It’s simply unintuitive and cumbersome.

            B) 66F is room temperature. Halfway between freezing (32F) and 100F.

            the intuition is learned and not natural.

            All scales have to be learned, obviously. It’s far easier to create intuitive anchorpoints in a 0-100 system than a -18 to 38 system. Thus, Fahrenheit is more intuitive for the average person.

            I should note that if you are a scientist, the argument completely changes. If you are doing experiments and making calcualtions across a much wider range of temperatures, Celsius and Kelvin are much more intuitive. But we are talking about the average human experience, and for that situation, I maintain Fahrenheit supremacy

            • accideath@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Your point about intuition is moot, imo, because if you didn’t grow up with F it’s just as unintuitive as C is to you.

              When you’re used to it the usage of decimals and negative numbers is neither complicated nor unintuitive because you’ve learned to know this intuitively for your whole life.

              I could argue, that freezing temps outside being below 0 are unintuitive because it’s obvious to me that negative temps mean it’s literally freezing cold. That’s intuitive for me because I‘ be used that my entire life. Same as room temperature being 20°C. It just makes sense to me because I‘ve always know it that way.

              Your “intuitive anchor points” 32 or 66 or whatever are completely nonsensical and unintuitive to someone whose brain is wired in Celsius. Because we don’t think in -18 to 38 but rather -20 to 40, if you want to think of it like that (or -40 to 20 I suppose, if you live somewhere where it’s colder). But in all honesty, in my day to day life, I don’t think about that, because I just know what a celsius value means intuitively.

              Fahrenheit is more intuitive for the average American, not the average person.

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I don’t think you’re taking into account that the average person is really bad at math. There’s a lot of people around the world that are illiterate.

                Anything can be intuitive if you’re intelligent enough. But when something is described as intuitive, that implies that it can be easily understood. Put it this way, if F is 1/10 difficulty, C is 2/10 and Kelvin is 5/10.

                Would you also argue that Kelvin is intuitive?

                Just because Celsius works perfectly fine doesn’t mean that Fahrenheit doesn’t make more intuitive sense.

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

                  I’m sorry, but if you go out on a cold day and see a barrel of water with ice on the top, you immediately know it’s freezing cold and we’re in the negatives. Water freezing being 0 is a solid, objective anchor point.

                  “When it feels cold” will vary from someone that lives in a generally warm climate to someone that lives in a colder climate but water will freeze at 0. That means the warm and cold people can base their range around that and intuitively understand how far or above or below 0 the extreme hot or cold areas are. Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas.

                  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    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.

                    Fahrenheit stays winning in my book.

    • efstajas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The typical range of human scale temperatures is like -10 to 40 degrees on the Celsius scale? Makes no sense.

      But it makes so much sense though. Because it’s anchored around the freezing and boiling points of water, which is a universal experience we can all relate to. 0°C outside? It’s freezing.

      Fahrenheit as “the human scale” is what makes no fucking sense. You end up with the same exact problem where your specific range of “human scale temperatures” does not line up with 0-100°F at all. But it’s also not anchored to water’s behavior. So it just ends up being arbitrary.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        But it makes so much sense though. Because it’s anchored around the freezing and boiling points of water, which is a universal experience we can all relate to. 0°C outside? It’s freezing.

        It does make sense. But no, I cannot personally relate to being H2O and freezing into a block of ice or evaporating into the air.

        As a human, I can relate to when I feel cold, and when I feel hot. And a scale where I feel hot at 30 degrees and cold at -10 is not even remotely intuitive.

        You end up with the same exact problem where your specific range of “human scale temperatures” does not line up with 0-100°F at all.

        Human scale temperatures do line up with 0-100 on the Fahrenheit scale. Certainly much better than 0-100 on the Celsius scale. How are you even disputing that???

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Of course what you grew up with makes the most sense, but everyone down voting you for saying 0–100 makes more sense in a vacuum than -20–40 always makes me laugh in these kinds of threads.

    • brb@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      -10C or 10C: Pretty comfortable

      -20C or 20C: Starting to feel bit cold or hot

      -30C or 30C: Uncomfortably cold or hot

      -40C or 40C: Almost painfully cold or hot

      How exactly is -40F to 104F better than that for human purposes?