kuri wrote:When it comes to measures of length or mass, the metric system deals with multiples of the basic units in an incomparably simpler manner. But regarding temperatures, I don't think that Celsius degrees are intrinsecally better than Fahrenheit (even if I think in Celsius because I grew up in a country that uses the metric system).
That's because the basic units are always arbitrarily chosen, unless you're using something like the Planck units, that are unusable in everyday life. So, the only meaningful difference IMHO (H stands for Humble ) between the two systems is the way they deal with multiples of the basic units, and the metric system indubitably wins in this regard.
But this comparison is no more valid when it comes to temperature, because neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit have weird-looking multiple units. Moreover, both can be made more "natural" by translating Celsius to Kelvin and Fahrenheit to Rankine.
I think it is only a historical accident that the metric system came out packaged with Celsius and Kelvin rather than Fahrenheit and Rankine. But, if I was to choose which system to use for scientific purposes, I would have no doubt that meters and kilometers are more fitting than feet, yards and miles.
I'm just glad we finally freed temperature from the tyranny of water.