Via Professor Phillipe Delquié, in Models for Strategic Planning:
Which temperature scale makes more sense, Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Most people trained in the sciences (or who live in non-US/UK countries) recognise Celsius as the "better" scale, its eminently logical 0º and 100º points corresponding to the phase transition points of pure liquid water. But there is a case to be made for Fahrenheit as well.
The Fahrenheit scale was originally calibrated against a saturated mixture of salt and water as the 0º point, and the temperature of the human body as 96º. Given the time of its creation (1724), these decisions were grounded in good science. A saturated mixture of salt and water will produce the same freezing point under a wide variety of conditions, as opposed to the freezing point of pure water, which is particularly sensitive to impurities in the liquid. At the other end of the scale, the temperature of the human body is a very good reference point, being the same (and easily measured) all around the world, whereas the boiling point of pure water is again quite sensitive to external conditions (ie. atmospheric pressure). For early 18th-century scientists, these were important advantages.
But consider also the temperature gradations. Interestingly, one degree Fahrenheit is the minimum amount of temperature variation detectable by humans; this is why most digital Fahrenheit scales work in 1º increments, and most digital Celsius scales use 0.5º gradations.
The lesson? When seeking to create measurements, be aware that context matters. Ensure that the measurements you construct correspond to the context in which you need to use them. When measuring risk and reward, know that you will never have perfect information; both payoffs and probabilites will be unknown. Never mind; make the best estimates that you can, and remember that the job of a manager is to make decisions and act under uncertainty.
1:42:17 PM 
|
