this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
596 points (76.3% liked)

Science Memes

10950 readers
2106 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

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 (1 children)

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 4 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 (1 children)

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.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I know. It still moves the zero point and forces it out of ratio, but I prefer it. I know both F and C since I have to use both regularly. F is set to C, too, I think. F = 1.8c + 36, I think?

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, it just moves the zero point, no ratio change: 0°C = 273,15 K / just a simple addition/subtraction.

Colloquially you can also ignore the 0,15 and make it even simpler.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Oh yeah, you're right, it's just Kelvin on a F scale. I shouldn't look at formulas at 2am when I should be sleeping, lol

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Never heard of Rankine, but it sounds like a Kelvin with a similar conversation to F (9/5, or 1.8, only inverse). Description suggestions as much, too. If I told students about it when talking about ratio scales, though, pretty sure it'd be a tad too much. Most haven't even heard of Kelvin!

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

Huh, TIL. That's actually pretty cool. Kelvin moving up the rankings 😅

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Haha, I teach statistics and it's usually a tough one walk on. You need a natural zero for ratios, even if the concept is a little weird (like 0 height). 2m is twice 1m, etc. My go to with interval (the non ratio continuous metric) tends to be likart scales. Or yelp stars, or any other arbitrary zero. I do mention temps, though

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Makes sense. I always knew Kelvin started at absolute zero, but I don't think I had ever heard of a ratio scale. I'm sure it has some kind of statistical implications about how you can analyze the data right?

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, something like that. Scales of measurement is mostly a formality in undergrad but it does determine eventually what you can and can't do with that scale.