I have done my own questionnaire, and I have found that people are generally ignorant of metric as well as Imperial. Only a few foreign kids (all the kids aged 16-19) did not know at all, but the anglo-Saxon and truly British children knew generally only thus:

12 inches = 1 foot, 1600 metres = 1 mile, 16ounhces = 1 pound, 14 pounds = 1 stone. Asides from this, no knowledge at all. But then quite a few didn't know, on the other hand, what a hectare was or how many metres to a kilometre.

One of the reasons for this sad state of affairs is that most British schoolchildren percieve the metric system as being something for 'bofs' who do science, whereas theri counterparts see the metric system as being part of everyday life.

I put the blame fairly and squarely on the shoulders of our politicians - Harold Wilson and Jin Callagham for leaving the metrication of the cinsuler sector till last (unlike the Aussies who metricated horse racing first), Margaret Thatcher for abolishing the Metrication Board in a fit of Euroscepticism (as oen who origianlly read a scientific subject at University, she should have known better) and John Major and Tony Blair for not having had the guts to tell the British people "We need to get this metrication job finished, we cannot go on having two systems running side by side". THe latter two were more interested in spin ansd short term political advantage than the nation's long-term well being.

re (Martin): "The latter two were more interested in spin and short term political advantage than the nation's long-term well being..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Ah! The nation's long-term well-being. So *that's* what the metric system is all about?

I am thinking of the long-tem well-being of metric Germany (5 million unemployed), metric Yugoslavia (bitter tribal wars), metric Rwanda Burundi (ditto), metric Zimbabwe (cruel oppression by a tyrant), metric South Africa (murder rate up 1,000 per cent, AIDS up 2,000 per cent), and metric North Korea (arguably the most repressive state in the world, and desperately poor into the bargain)...

<<
One of the reasons for this sad state of affairs is that most British schoolchildren percieve the metric system as being something for 'bofs' who do science
>>

They're right. Why would they perceive it like this? There must be something behind it.

<<<I am thinking of the long-tem well-being of metric Germany (5 million unemployed), metric Yugoslavia (bitter tribal wars), metric Rwanda Burundi (ditto), metric Zimbabwe (cruel oppression by a tyrant), metric South Africa (murder rate up 1,000 per cent, AIDS up 2,000 per cent), and metric North Korea (arguably the most repressive state in the world, and desperately poor into the bargain)...>>>

If only these countries hadn't been metric, none of this would have happened.

I've read some pretty ridiculous things on this board, but I think this takes the biscuit!

<<<I am thinking of the long-tem well-being of metric Germany (5 million unemployed), metric Yugoslavia (bitter tribal wars), metric Rwanda Burundi (ditto), metric Zimbabwe (cruel oppression by a tyrant), metric South Africa (murder rate up 1,000 per cent, AIDS up 2,000 per cent), and metric North Korea (arguably the most repressive state in the world, and desperately poor into the bargain)...>>>


There are over 200 countries/independent states in the world. Four of these countries (UK, US, Liberia and Burma) have not formally adopted the metric system in full. If we identify 50 different types of chaos, corruption or other man-made calamity that could befall a nation, then we would expect 49 of them to befall metric nations and one to befall one of the nations that have not adopted the metric system. The above list contains only 6 calamities.

If you used normal statistical theory, we would have to identify 80 different unrelated calamaties and have none of them apply to non-metric countries before we could reasonably say that we cannot reject the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the calamaties in question and metrication.

For the benefit of the statistically inclined amongst the readers, I made the assumtion that there are 200 countries, that 4 are non-metric, the the variance of the distribution of calamaties follows the Poisson distribution (with p = 1/50) and that we are using the one-sided confidence level of 95%.

I plain English - unless Tony can come up with 80 different and independent calamaties, identify the countries to which they relate and if none of them relate to non-metric countries, only is his hypothesis that countries with non-metric system of measure are less prone to such calamaties worth investigating further.

re (Martin): "...only is his [T Bennett's] hypothesis that countries with non-metric system of measure are less prone to such calamaties worth investigating further"

REPLY:

It is truly amazing how often one's comments are misinterpreted on this board, I'm sure without thinking, though at times it does seem almost deliberate.

Martin made the comment, at least faintly ridiculous, that for Britain to go metric would be 'for the well-being of the country'.

To expose this somewhat ridiculous idea, I merely pointed out some examples of where adopting the metric system had clearly not made any difference to the well-being of a country.

The idea that switching from customary measures to metric is for the 'well-being' of a country is, frankly, risible.

The well-being of a country depends on its citizens' capacity for hard work, enterprise, inventiveness etc., together with an environment which includes freedom of speech and thought, democratic government, the rule of law, economic and political stability, and internal and external security.

Causing confusion and expense in switching measurements which are good, useful and familiar *detracts* from the well-being of a country and in the case of the U.K. is divisive

<<
To expose this somewhat ridiculous idea, I merely pointed out some examples of where adopting the metric system had clearly not made any difference to the well-being of a country.
>>

The examples that you gave can tell us one of three things:

1. Countries that use the metric system are more likely to suffer calamaties than those that do not use the metric system.

2. Countries that use the metric system are less likely to suffer calamaties than those that do not use the metric system.

3. We have insufficient evidence to make a judgement one way or the other.

What I showed was that condition (3) applied. Moreover I showed that by only using 6 calamaties, we could never arrive at condition (1) - we would need to list at least 80 calamaties before it was theoretically possible to assert that condition (1) was the case. Since you only used 6 calamaties and not at least 80, your statement was of no significance.

"If you used normal statistical theory, we would have to identify 80 different unrelated calamaties and have none of them apply to non-metric countries before we could reasonably say that we cannot reject the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the calamaties in question and metrication.

For the benefit of the statistically inclined amongst the readers, I made the assumtion that there are 200 countries, that 4 are non-metric, the the variance of the distribution of calamaties follows the Poisson distribution (with p = 1/50) and that we are using the one-sided confidence level of 95%."

We do like a bit of significance testing!

re: "For the benefit of the statistically inclined amongst the readers, I made the assumtion that there are 200 countries, that 4 are non-metric, the the variance of the distribution of calamaties follows the Poisson distribution (with p = 1/50) and that we are using the one-sided confidence level of 95%. We do like a bit of significance testing!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY: Ah! Good! So if (as happened between 26 and 28 April 2002), 86% of those interviewed preferred Imperial to metric on British road signs, and only 8% preferred meric, and 1,001 people were interviewed in that survery (carried out by ICM), how confident can we be about the results, i.e. are they statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, 97.5%, 99%, or even better?

"There are over 200 countries/independent states in the world. Four of these countries (UK, US, Liberia and Burma) have not formally adopted the metric system in full"

This is entirely untrue. But often reported.

I will advise elsewhere (re: my recent holiday)