817
temperature (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 33 points 8 months ago* (last edited 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 belowCelsius 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 argumentsIt’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.

[-] EnderofGames@sh.itjust.works 53 points 8 months ago* (last edited 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 5 points 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.

[-] eldain@feddit.nl 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 15 points 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 😤

...

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] uienia@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 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.

[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

You've provided zero proof of either statement.

[-] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 52 points 8 months ago

100C is literally instant death.

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

[-] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago

He will surely die on his hill... ALONE !

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] efstajas@lemmy.world 35 points 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 7 points 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 14 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] noli@programming.dev 11 points 8 months ago

It's all learned behaviour. If you grew up with F that makes total sense and C sounds ridiculous. If you grew up with C that's totally intuitive for anyone, just as much as F, so using a scale that has no point outside of the weather sounds dumb. Neither system is more intuitive by any means. Both systems ave benefits and downsides.

Whenever I talk to americans and they use F I need to convert it because I grew up with C and that just makes more sense to me, even if I know the "0-100 F is according to human experience" thing. Like sure, 80F is hot, but how hot is it? Oh 27C that's hot but not extreme.

Arguing one or the other is superior is not only pointless but also just silly

[-] Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

wait 80f is 27c? That's not hot at all

[-] uienia@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

But no, I cannot personally relate

And there we have it. You are not used to the system, so you can't personally relate to it. Which is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold. The problem is that you make a lot of claims about a system you are not as familiar with, most notably that it isn't useful for what it is actually being used for by the majority of humans.

[-] Nudding@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Weird because you're made of mostly water. Like 70 something percent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Laticauda@lemmy.ca 25 points 8 months ago

I grew up with celcius and to me it feels more applicable to the human experience. It literally only depends on which one you're more used to, idk why people feel the need to come up with these weird unnecessary "explanations".

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 23 points 8 months ago

Anything below 0F is really cold for a human

Anything below 10F is really cold for a human too, and so is anything below -10F what's your point?

100C is literally instant death.

While commonly between 80 and 100, finnish sauna temperatures up to 110°c are not unheard of.

Very hot, but definitely not even close to instant death.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] rainynight65@feddit.de 16 points 8 months ago

Whenever I think that I have seen it all in one of these °F vs °C threads, someone comes along and proves me wrong.

No, the F scale was not built around human biology, that is pure conjecture from people who can't let go of their antiquated system of measures.

But you go die on that hill, I won't stop you.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] zaphod@feddit.de 14 points 8 months ago

Anything below 0F is really cold for a human, and anything above 100F is really hot.

Therefore the perfect temperature would be 50°F, which is 10°C, in my opinion a little too cold to be perfect, I'd prefer something in the 15-20°C range.

[-] MisterHavoc@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

I would not mind if you were to expand

[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My argument is actually pretty simple, but people could always challenge these assertions, in which case it would get more complicated.

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. 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.

But Fahrenheit is the temperature scale of the proletariat, the working man, the average Joe. And I'm here for it.

[-] Unskilled5117@feddit.de 21 points 8 months ago

Multiple problems with you assertions.

A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

You know that Celsius uses decimals for everything, so really not much difference. Furthermore the granularity of Fahrenheit doesn‘t have any advantages. You won‘t be able to feel wether its 70°F or 71°F outside, nor if you’ve got a fever of 101°F or 102°F. You need to look at a thermometer. And please don‘t reply saying that decimals are complicated. The majority of the planet, except certain Countries seem to manage just fine. Would be quite laughable if one certain country thinks it‘s too complicated.

B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

Not really sure what you are referencing. I think it just stems from you growing up with Fahrenheit, so not feeling comfortable with anything else.

But Fahrenheit is the temperature scale of the proletariat, the working man, the average Joe. And I'm here for it.

I mean the “proletariat” of the majority of the world uses Celsius.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

'murican being 'murican. That's why nobody likes you people.

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

Celsius is literally Kelvin + 273.

[-] brb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

I like watching people dying in this hill, more power to you. I don't necessarily agree, but telling people it's negative anything just to say it's pretty cold is indeed less intuitive to me (and kids don't even know negatives until a bit older).

Only thing is, 100 doesn't need to be anyone's scale, with C I think of it more like a scale from 10 to 40, especially since I live in California, and F is more a scale from 50 to 110. It'd probably help if F really was based on human temps, with 100 being the average temp whenever you measure, instead of 96 to 98.

(An aside, neither are ratio scales. 0 in both cases are arbitrary and a temp of 100 isn't twice as hot as 50. Only Kelvin is like that, which makes it my favorite even if it's never intuitive, haha)

[-] RustnRuin@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago

When I was a kid, I learned about negative numbers pretty early on. It was a perfectly normal part of life, since the temp was in the negative a lot of the year. Made sense to me. Temp is below zero? Water is solid. . Temp above zero? Water is liquid. Fahrenheit doesn't make much sense to me, inherently, because I don't have an integral frame of reference, built over decades of familiarity. Celcius on the other hand, it just makes sense!

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Sure, negatives aren't hard, nor are decimals. But I should remind you we're talking about a population that wouldn't buy a third-pounder hamburger because they thought a quarter-pounder was more. Fractions are covered pretty early on, too!

Joking aside, if F actually was based on something specific and measurable, it'd also make sense. Then it's just a matter of what you got used to. Granted, human temps vary, so you can't just make 100 the human temp and 0 the temp a human dies, so that's an impossibity. (Water can vary too under circumstances if I remember right, but not quite as much or as unpredictable as some human based metric).

[-] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 8 months ago

Did it never occur to you that Celsius is basically Kelvin with the zero point moved to human reference?

Human reference because >50% of our body is water. We are essentially water bags.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Only Kelvin is like that

False. Rankine is too.

I didn't find any others in a quick glance at the wiki, but it would be easy to imagine a scale like 0 at absolute zero, and 100 at the freezing point of water or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] uienia@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

That is a large amount of text to say "I am used to fahrenheit therefore it makes sense to me, and now I will proceed to claim it is the only system that shows how humans feel".

load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
817 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

11004 readers
2725 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS