The Daily Mail recently published an article on University of Helsinki research about the merits of body-based measurements. The article says that they are easily accessible, enable us to make approximate measurements and give us valuable insights into the history of measurement. However, body parts do not make good measuring devices because everyone is different and even tailors use tape measures. The historical use of body-based measurements led to the proliferation of different handspans, cubits, feet and inches. This caused problems for international trade and co-operation.
The Daily Mail article’s heading is “‘Body-based measurements’ like handspans, cubits and fathoms still work better than their metric alternatives, according to experts”. The question that arises from such an article is whose handspan, cubit and fathom should be the standard. As body sizes vary between people, you cannot just use anyone’s handspan, cubit or fathom. These units have to be a standard size to be of any use. Countries could never agree on this issue because national pride gets in the way.
Hence there were attempts by scientists to produce a universal standard of length and derived measurements based on a neutral source such as a pendulum or the earth. The meridian arc, an earth-based measurement, was eventually chosen after scientific experiments revealed that the gravitational force on a pendulum varies by location.
In today’s technological age, people require measurements that have much more precision that can be given by a handspan, cubit or foot and this is where the imperial system not only falls down, but utterly collapses. In order to avoid taking fractions of an inch, the unit called a “line” was introduced – 12 lines to an inch. When that was too coarse, a unit called the “point” was introduced (used in the printing trade) – 6 points to a line. We have no smaller units than that. The point is too coarse for piston and cylinder clearances. Typical clearances are 0.05 mm (0.002 inches or 0.15 points). To make matters worse, one should measure cylinders and pistons separately before checking them together. This calls for a greater precision – typically 0.01 mm.
The metric system provides far greater levels of precision than any of the old pre-metric units and is designed to meet the world’s demands for ever-increasing levels of precision. Like decimal currencies, metric measures are now used everywhere due to ease of calculations and simplicity. Rather than having to learn two systems of units, we should recall that the metric system is “for all people for all time”.
You can find the Daily Mail’s article about body-based measurements at:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12150647/Body-based-measurements-like-handspans-fathoms-work-better-metric-alternatives.html (“‘Body-based measurements’ like handspans, cubits and fathoms still work better than their metric alternatives, according to experts” by Victoria Allen, published in the Daily Mail on 2 June 2023)
https://mailonline.pressreader.com/article/281771338576464 (“Hard to fathom? No, the old measures beat metric” by Victoria Allen, Mail Online Press Reader)
Metric Views 
Considering that Finland has been a metric country for years, I think that the “Daily Wail” report has been selective in its reporting. I find my hand very convenient for estimating. 10 cm wide, with 2 cm divisions provided by fingers. I use it regularly to estimate screw lengths. I am sure that the University of Helsinki recognizes that too. This, then, is an example of metric bias in the press.
LikeLike
It’s certainly interesting to read how native tribes and peoples makes their boats, etc using lengths based on the body (though as as the article says: whose body?). But I’m sure not even the Daily Mail is suggesting that this could be a new way of measurement for the world. I was also amused to read that the height of horses in ‘hands’ is now a standard ‘hand’ of four inches. So an addition to the imperial system: three hands to a foot. I suppose it avoids mixing up hands and feet!
LikeLike
The interview for original article can be seen in the Science journal (https://www.science.org/content/podcast/how-we-measure-world-our-bodies-and-hunting-critical-minerals) and the researcher’s biographical note at https://www.roopekaaronen.com/. On reading these articles I feel that the use of anthropological units and metric units complement each other. Anthropological units are useful in ergonomic studies – for example Kaaaronen (the researcher whose papers sparked this discussion) is a keen kayaker. He recommends paddles that re 2.5 [natural] fathoms in length which is almost identical to being 2.5 times the user’s height. If the user want s to buy paddles, then, if he knows his height, he can select appropriate paddles from a dealer’s stock of [hopefully] standard sizes. Ideally such paddles could come in increments of 10 cm.
Unfortunately the Daily Mail, as normal, gave minimal information about the context surrounding the article. For example, they could have identified Kaararonen as a social anthropologist then at least readers could see where he was coming from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Martin,
There is another link that I came across on r/metric:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
LikeLike
I still confess to being baffled as to why the BBC still includes feet (even in parentheses) for altitudes. I thought a person’s height was the only time people still use “feet” for height (personal altitude?) in the UK. Is “feet” for altitudes still a thing in the UK?
See this article on the BBC News web site:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65903065
Worse, the main Science page that has a thumbnail of this article that links to it uses only “feet” in the summary … no metric at all there.
I understand the persistent use of “miles” in the UK because of road signs, but I thought the foot had gone away much like degrees Fahrenheit for temperature. Think of all the signs that said “2 metres” distance to be kept between people during the pandemic to match the “6 feet” distance we always posted on signs over here in the USA. I never heard of a sign in Britain that said “6 feet”, right?
So, what am I missing here?
LikeLike
The BBC has a tendency to use both measurements depending on the context. So in US stories non-metric is normally first, while stories in most of the world metric is first and the UK being a ridiculous hodgepodge means that it is dependent on whatever is deemed most relevant.
The UK press has been particularly stubborn in embracing metrication. Using imperial units even in areas that are commonly given in metric. They will needlessly convert a scientific study into pounds and feet, despite the fact that kg and metres are perfectly well understood. With pounds in particularly being pretty much phased out in favour of kg at this point. There was even the joke of celuisheit where the tabloid press have a tendency to use Fahrenheit on a hot day because it makes a bigger number but thankfully that appears to be on the way out and they tend to just stick to Celsius.
They have a lot to blame for the current perpetuation of imperial units. Sure they can claim that is what their readers want but it ultimately means that they are not going to get use to it and means that younger people are forced to cope with them. Meaning that it gets further perpetuated Undermining both their metric education and ability to coherently understand things.
LikeLike
Ezra & Alex M,
Since the BBC and media aren’t living beings and can’t make decisions as to what units to use, we have to look for a person or persons who are making the decision as to what units they have chose to use. Since there seems to be no rhyme or reason or consistency in the choice of units, we have to assume that either that is the choice of the individual reporter, the editor or a combination of both.
Some reporter/editors may have a pro-imperial bias meaning they will use only imperial or make it out that imperial are the actual units used by those being written about. The use of dual units may have resulted from complaints, not only from English readers but from those Americans who insist King George’s units be present or used only. Dual units are an attempt to satisfy two warring camps.
If you find the use of FFU irritating, then you need to write to the person who wrote the article and insist they use only metric units. Whether they listen to you or agree with you, at least you let them know that you prefer metric units.
LikeLike