VOL. 3. NO. 2
C~RRESPONDENCE
215
istry in a high school is enough either for the student who goes to college or the one who does not, provided he takes other sciences and essential academic subjects. MCKINLEYTECHNICAL H. S., WASHINGTON, D. C.
THE METRIC SYSTEM AND MR. DALE Many of Mr. S. S. Dale's arguments against the metric system' and in criticism of my articleZhave previously been answered by Professor Bingham.' However, Mr. Dale's arguments do not stay answered and he has dusted them offfor us again. As historians, Mr. Dale and I seem to be greatly a t variance. This is due partly to his pisinterpretation of some of my statements and partly to the fact that our sources of information are different. This is often the case in historical questions where we have to depend upon opinion or authority. I did, however, point out that decimalization is the intrinsic property of the Arabic system of enumeration, and there seemed no necessity for Mr. Dale to take the trouble to convince us that the practical use of decimals must have been invented before the time of James Watt! Fortunately the claims for the metric system are not based upon its history but upon its advantages for present-day usage. If the opponents of the metric system would agree to give metric units a fair trial by practical use, I should gladly yield to Mr. Dale on every historical pointeven to the "red blood of the French Revolution." I trust he will not deny that some good may have come out of so much blood. Mr. Dale criticizes the chart of the Metric Association which shows the advance of metric usage by countries because, on this chart, large and small countries are given equal importance. For example, the non-metric British Empire and metric Belgium are given equal values without regard to statistics of area, wealth, and population. The point intended in the chart is that each country represents a definite decision in favor of the metric system and that all but two countries have made this decision. It is not necessarily true that the largest and richest countries are the wisest and most progressive. The inability to distinguish between 1 "Educating the Public in Weights and Measures," THIS JOURNAL, 2, 1064-7 (1925). 2 "Educating the Public in the Use of the Metric System," Ibid.. 2, 593-9 (1925). "Xnswering Mr. Dale on the Metric System," I.I d . Eng. Chem.,News Ed., Oct. 20, 1923.
216
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
FEBRUARY, 1926
quantity and quality is often attributed to the Middle West, but the error is unforgivable when emanating from Boston. It is important to note that all national changes in standards have been to the metric system. No country, having once adopted metric units, has ever reverted to other standards of measurement. Metric advocates in this country and in Great Britain are people who have in practice used both the English and metric systems and who so much prefer the latter that they desire to use i t exclusively and to teach their fellow-citizens its advantages. Mr. Dale's statement that what we need is fewer and not more units is exactly our argument. From the educational point of view it is a great waste of time to teach two or more systems of measurement when one would suffice. It is our contention that the metric system is the one that should be retained because of its greater simplicity and usefulness. I t has unlimited extension decimally in both directions and hence is suitable for the measurement of the smallest and largest quantities. The objection of metric opponents that metric units are not of convenient size is quite absurd. That factor depends entirely upon the thing to be measured. In financial matters which is the unit of most convenient size: the franc, the pound, or the dollar? Obviously a senseless question. If one has the advantage it is the dollar-not because of its size, but because of its decimal relations. The attempt to decimalize English units must result in more confusion and little benefit because such decimalization is limited to the division of certain units. Some lengths are now recorded in feet and inches and others in feet and tenths. The recent proposal in Congress to construct an American decimal system of weights and measures, using the English units (with changed values), is the suggestion of worse confusion with the disadvantage of being diierent from the system of measurement in any other country. All this, however, shows the desire for decimal relations. The metric system offers the desirable features of any decimal system with the advantage of being universally understood, used in every other country except Great Britain, and probably to be adopted there. Mr. Dale would leave us under the impression that metric usage has made no progress in this country during the sixty years that it has been permissive. This is far from the truth. Some important manufacturing companies have changed throughout their plants to the metric system and report a decided economy. There is no record that any such have changed hack to English units. Many national trade and professional organizations have gone on record as desiring to use the metric system. These groups feel that they cannot make the change on their own initiative until their public is educated to the advantages of metric measurement. Practically
VOL.3, NO. 2
CORRESPONDENCE
217
every advance in modem technology is due to the application of the physical sciences-in which the metric system is an appreciated tool. Back of the industries which still put most of their products on the market in pounds and gallons, the chemists and physicists are in careful control of the processes which they have more conveniently worked out in grams and liters. The only criticism of the metric system of measurement which deserves serious consideration must come from persons who have thoroughly tried both metric and English units in actual use. If such persons can then give sensible reasons why they still prefer to use the English system, they shall have our courteous attention.
MAKE CHEMISTRY A REQmRED HIGH-SCHOOL SUBJECT I find that a great many people do not know what they are talking about; some don't know tin from zinc, others don't know concrete from granite, some think that where there is an ice cave there must be ammonia near a t hand. There are many strange ideas among ordinary people. It is therefore astounding to my mind that educators in this country do not press for the requirement of chemistry in high-school courses. To live and get the most out of life, to best enjoy the good things, and to best he ahle to solve the difficulties of life, we discover sooner or later that our problems work out better when we have some knowledge of the matters with which we have to deal. A great many times we come to the crossroads and must make a decision and i t is the ratio of correct to incorrect decisions that determines our degree of success. To make good decisions requires knowledge. Knowledge comes from the study of English, mathematics, and chemistry, and such other subjects as we may desire, but today and tomorrow chemistry must be ranked of fundamental importance to every individual. Chemistry is the study of the properties of matter and as we learn more about these properties we are ahle to make better and better use of this matter, which in one form or another constitutes everything in the nniverse. The white man is now producing beautiful colors and curative medicines from the coal the Indian sat upon. The ordinary household is more contented if the furnace is run properly and if the proper food is purchased and properly prepared. The farmer is interested in foodstuffs, fertilizers, etc.; the mechanic in the properties of his metals, the baker in his dough, the painter in his pigments, the chemical worker in his chemicals. Our automobiles and storage batteries work
