> Look at Fahrenheit, for example. I’m American, and I still think it’s absurd, but because I’m extremely used to it, it feels natural.

What do you find absurd about Fahrenheit?

If it is that its 0 point is not absolute 0 then I think you can make a good case, at least for scientific work. It's a bit harder to make the case for absolute 0 being the 0 point a scale for ordinary day to day use since all temperatures most people deal with will be 3 digit numbers (and making you degree large won't help because people will still need 3 digit number--they just won't be integers any more).

If you find it absurd compared to Celsius then I think it is hard to make a convincing case. They are both scales with a 0 point way above absolute 0, differing only on where they put their 0 point and the size of the degree. (They originally differed on direction, with Celsius putting 0 at the boiling point of water and setting the degree size so that water froze at 100, but Celsius soon came to his sense and flipped so the numbers went up as it got hotter).

Fahrenheit set 0 at the coldest temperature he could make in his lab and tried to set 100 at body temperature. Celsius (once he got the direction fixed) set 0 at water freezing and 100 at water boiling.

That gives Fahrenheit a smaller degree and puts the range of temperatures most people deal with most of the time above 0.

Celsius made it easier to memorize two temperatures that are very significant in many human activities, namely the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water (although the latter is probably less important...generally most people only deal with boiling water when they are trying to boil water and don't need to care about the temperature. It's not like freezing which can happen naturally and so people often need to monitor temperature to find out if there is danger of freezing).

But that 0 point in Celsius means that a lot of people have to regularly deal with negative temperature which is a little annoying.

The metric system chose Celsius, but I've not been able to find any compelling technical reason for that. A metric system with Fahrenheit would have fine too.

Note that unlike mass, length, area, and volume units pre-metric systems generally only had one temperature unit. There was nothing in temperature like miles, yards, inches, feet, furlongs, etc. for length and gallons, pints, cups, etc. for volume. A system that went with one single length unit (the meter) and one single volume unit (the liter) and then derived larger and smaller units from those using consistent ratios and prefixes that were the same across different types of units was a massive simplification.

I asked an LLM why metric went with Celsius and got a lot of circular reasons. For example it cited that various thermodynamic forumals would not work with F degrees because the Boltzman constant is defined in the SI system using K. But the Boltzman constant is defined that way because SI uses the metric system. In an F based metric system the Boltzman constant would be defined in R and everything would work fine.

The non-circular reasons it suggested were also not satisfactory. One was that C was more common than F in Europe at the time the metric system was created, which technically does answer the question I asked but then raises the question of why C became more common pre-metric.

It also suggested that having water freeze at 0 and boil at 100 fits in better with a decimal system which doesn't really make a lot of sense.

As for why C became more popular than F pre-metric it suggests that the 0 and 100 points were easier to reproduce. Fahrenheit's choice of body temperature for the 100 point was definitely a mistake as it is too fuzzy (it was even dumber than metric's initial choice for the meter as 1/10000000th of the distance from the distance from the North Pole to the equator along the meridian passing through Paris).

Freezing and boiling of water do take some care to use (you need to control pressure and contaminants) but are going to be more consistent that body temperature.

But there is no reason I can see that the fuzziness in Fahrenheit's 100 point couldn't have been fixed by simply changing the defining points from 0 and 100 to water freezes at 32 and boils at 212. Yes, it is not as easy to memorize as 0 and 100 but does let us have a scale where most temperatures dealt with by most people most of the time are 2 or 3 digit positive integers.

For the same reason that every other Imperial measurement is absurd – they’re completely arbitrary. 1 inch is 3 barleycorns, which can have very different sizes. 12 inches to a foot, because a human foot is a decent measurement, I guess? 3 feet to a yard, 5280 feet to a mile… these make sense for their time, but we are no longer in that time.

I understand the argument for Fahrenheit having better granularity with whole numbers in the human range of the scale. I don’t think that justifies everything else about it, especially considering the rest of the world somehow manages with Celsius.

It's likely as simple as Celsius befriending/visiting France, while Fahrenheit - England...