No, metric should be the system used within the scientific community.

Science is a tool whose work improves all mankind. It is a discipline that has one language....That language is maths.....Within the language it requires a means to communicate measurements. The metric system is the better system to use....Science isn't about culture...outside of a petri dish.

Science and personal and national cultures are not the same things.

If there were no national differences and nations all had the same shared experiences and histories then I'm sure that homogenized processes for everyone would be accepted by the vast majority.

However, we don't share the same national cultures or histories and hence systems that relate specifically to different cultures are what the majority of people want to exist.

Egalitarians always seem to want everything to be the same....For differences between people to not exist...It's almost like a reality based version of 'invasion of the body snatchers'.

Humanity is tribal. You can refine the animal but you can't take away its underlying instincts. People will always seek groups and difference.

That tendency should be worked with, not against.

As much as its tribal, its more defined by change and willingness to change, the embrace of imperial systems of measurement is based in an absurdist view of national identity as fixed and an eurosceptic view of the world.

Units of measurement are mathematically determined, why have different systems of measurement based on different cultural environments, particually given the complex and irrational basis of imperial systems.

In this, the relucatence to change is more about embracing a 'political stance' even though the oppositional point is actually right, and ultimately we should be driven by pragmatism than ideology.

Culture and history are irrelivent when you're talking about systems of measurement that have changed throughout history based on the best methodology and technology for measurement.

As are biologically determined arguments about tribalism and human nature - fundermentally any arguement about measurement is about accuracy and communicability, not historical precidencent.

I suspect the basis of your arguement lies in nationalism, self identity and nostlagia, rather than which system is actually superior as a form of measurement (because you even admit that). But its important that in establishing our national identity we do not closet off the idea of progression and change that is benefical.

Identity should always be flexible towards change, when that change is in the common interest and best interest, not resistant because of the source of that change.

That said, I'd be happy to see a compromise where both systems are used in retail, provided the conversion system was set on an exact basis by government (so that people aren't being done for money on the conversion between the two systems).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Apr 2015 1.21pm)

Government simply have to either clarify in law the suspension of voting rights of prisoners, or provide some form of enfranchisement of prisoners (such as after 4 years or a means by which its earned).

The response of teh Government and Media was as if they'd be told they had to rape their own kids, and was irresponsible (and all about their own agenda).

And your pounds with half crowns,shillings,pence, ha'pennys and farthings?

Change to what? The same system as the other lot use? How does that fit tribalism? It doesn't....It takes away one more aspect of difference.

Sure, my attitude towards imperial is connected to self identity and nationalism...Not nostalgia as imperial has never gone.

Yes, metric is better if we were starting from scratch....but imperial is fine for the areas we use it for.....Miles or stones/pounds for example.....Taking it away wouldn't only cost a fair bit in road sign replacement but it wouldn't actually be progress......As imperial works fine.

The metrication process actually cost a lot of money and it's that which has ultimately left us in this two way system....We only need metric for international use....Like the Americans.

American domestic airline flights are assigned altitudes in feet and measure speed in knots.....It makes no difference....It can be argued that American air travel is amongst the safest in the world.

The argument for better.....Well, it's true from a simplification point of view but it's hardly needed.....Where it is needed, such as in international communication it is used as it should be....Imperial gets the job done as well as metric and change is only progress if it improves something.

Imperial is important in a cultural sense and that's fine....It is apart of our heritage and that has an importance to many people. I want Britain to be Britain and Italy to be Italy and Spain...And so on....I view that as a positive.

I want my height in feet and inches and my potatoes in pounds.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Apr 2015 1.47pm)

Change for its own sake should be avoided, the arguement for retaining milage make sense, as its pragmatic to retain that system due to cost. In terms of weights and measures, phasing out the old with the new is progressive, for those of us who prefer rational number systems of measurement, over irrational ones.

Yes it did the job, as did pre-decimilisation money, but it effectively did so by requiring an entirely unnecessarily complex system of division, as opposed to a system of division you already knew.

Units of 10 are far more versitile for measurement, especially when dealing with consistant data, then imperial systems.

And problematically weighing in Lbs and Ozs generally means rounding off to the nearest oz or a nightmarish decent into fractions of an oz, rather than a more precise decimil figure.

I mean who doesn't miss the day of multiplying 2lb 3 1/5th oz by 2s 6p 2f.

Good old days those, where doing grocery shopping required such additional calculations.