A Fahrenheit Alternative
This post is about the Fahrenheit temperature scale. It contains a bit of speculation, some criticism, and a suggestion for a better alternative that is suitable for common use. More suitable, I think, than the metric Celsius scale, which is doubtless very useful in laboratory conditions but seems too compressed for easy intuitive comprehension.
My speculation on the Fahrenheit scale centers on the scale offset of 32 degrees. That is, on the Fahrenheit scale there are 180 degrees between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water (at sea level, one atmospheric pressure), but instead of using zero degrees as the freezing point of water there is an awkward 32 degree positive offset. This is unnecessary; I think it largely stems from religion-derived (but not actually religious) superstition.
Namely, that regarding the number sequence 666. There is a reference to this number in the final canon book of the Christian bible, Revelations, as the number of a man, or the number of the beast. Many interpretations give it a negative connotation; in popular culture it is generally thought of as denoting something evil or corrupt.
Such concerns were very important for early scientists, like Mr. Fahrenheit, who may or may not have realized that when one denotes 180 degree measures between the freezing and the boiling points of water, normal human body temperature reads as 66.6º. Instead of the 98.6ºF obtained once that 32 degree offset is added in.
Now, we cannot actually know whether this was deliberate, as Mr. Fahrenheit apparently did not ever record the issue. Instead he referenced another human temperature measure, something like 96ºF at the warmest part of the armpit. Though it seems to me that he did in fact realize the issue, but found the scale to be otherwise good and so added in the offset.
There are good reasons to like the scale itself, disregarding the offset. 180 is divisible by 12, which helps it to fit in nicely with our base-60 timekeeping. I think that there is an intuitive comfort in using base-12 or its multiples for number measures—something that appeals to the human mind at a basic level. Which, other than sheer inertia, helps to explain ongoing resistance to the decimetric craze popularized by the French Revolution and touted by scientists and over-logical individuals since. The larger scale also means that each degree measure has a significant amount of meaning without appealing to decimals. Perhaps it is just because I am personally more used to the larger number of gradations, but the Celsius scale always seems crowded to me. As though one must appeal to decimals for important gradations instead of just using easier whole numbers on the Fahrenheit scale.
So, to that effect I am proposing a modification of the Fahrenheit scale to remove that offset of 32 degrees. To avoid confusion this scale should have a new name, a new designation. I hereby dub the new scale as the Jones. Or degrees J, ºJ (such as 0ºJ for the freezing point of water, 180ºJ for the boiling point of water, and 66.6ºJ for normal average human body temperate). That last measure may become an issue of contention for some people—but it is what it is. Best we stop trying to hide it and just find a way to come to terms with it instead.
The Jones scale of thermal measurement is the same as the Fahrenheit scale in every way except for the removal of the 32 degree offset. This will make for a fairly smooth transition and will enable people to still use Fahrenheit tools and readings with a simple bit of mental arithmetic. Reasons for making the switch include much easier conversions between temperature scales (5/9 to the Celsius scale, or 9/5 in reverse), retaining the intuitive degree variations of the Fahrenheit scale, and at the same time forcing a confrontation and/or enabling us to come to terms with a bit of historical irrationality.
[Joseph Jones, 02 March 2022]