Hakding. — Certain Decimal and Metrical Fallacies. 87 



sary waste of time, and when they are told that " the decimal 

 system " will set everything right they do not investigate for 

 themselves. The onus of pi'oof lies with the aggressive mi- 

 nority, and that proof is not forthcoming. They offer instead 

 of proof many assertions which will not bear examination. 



The initial fallacy is to call the French scheme " the " 

 decimal system. It is a decimal scheme, as are also other and 

 better schemes. Its one distinguishing feature is its unit — the 

 meter. It is therefore not " the decimal system," but the 

 " metric " system. The misnomer gives rise to the inference — 

 and the notion is widely held- — that decimalisation involves 

 a change of standards, which is not the case. Thei'e can be 

 no warrant for so radical a change except it be plainly 

 shown — 



(1) That the standard proposed is scientifically or practi- 



cally better intrinsically or extrinsically than the 

 existing one ; 



(2) That the advantage is so great as to outweigh the 



disturbance and inconvenience occasioned by the 



change. 

 I do not think that these propositions can be seriously dis- 

 puted. If, then, it can be proved — 



(1) That the meter is arbitrary, possessing no scientific 



value nor any ascertainable relation to anything in 

 creation ; 



(2) That the national standards possess these qualities in 



a high degree ; 



(3) That for practical purposes the existing standards are 



essentially better and more convenient — 

 what excuse is there for the change ? And there is over- 

 whelming proof in support of these propositions. 



I have spoken of the resolutions of certain bodies in favour 

 of the change as perfunctory. It is significant that almost 

 immediately after the last formal resolution of the Wellington 

 Chamber of Commerce the chairman wrote to the press 

 pointing out that the change, if made, would have serious and 

 unlooked-for consequences. Yet these consequences must 

 surely suggest themselves to any one who gives the matter any 

 consideration. 



As for the decimalisation of the national coinage, it has 

 long been a desideratum. A suggestion was lately made to 

 divide the pound sterling into four hundred parts. It was 

 put forward as "decimalisation of the coinage," which it is 

 not. The subject has been fully dealt with by a commission 

 of leading mathematicians in Britain, and a complete and 

 consistent scheme was long ago formulated. The figure 

 representing the number of pounds would be followed by 

 three figures separated by a space or decimal point, and 



