11–20 of 148 posts
Not sure if it's all the countries, but I have always heard the normal body temperature in Celsius stated as 36.5, which is 97.7 F. Is 98.6 an american-only thing?
I have always felt that 37C was way too precise an answer for a human's body temperature. How is it that a measurement based on the freezing and boiling point for water coincidentally lands on a nice even number for a human's body temperature. It's one of my issues with biological sciences that they sometimes try to come up with precise answers as they do in physics or chemistry, when most of the time answers, such a…
Even “around” is meaningless without context. A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10), a healthy person is around 37c (+/- 1) and a manufacturing process could call for a temp around 37c (+/- 0.1).
So 37 is +-1C, 40 is +-10, and 36.6 is +-0.1
As the article says, Wunderlich reached a conclusion of 37C in the 1800s, and that’s what we’ve used since then. The real problem appears to be that converting to Fahrenheit and reporting this as “98.6F” suggests an order of magnitude more precision than “37C”. 36.5C would still round to 37 but corresponds to 97.7F.
> The average normal temperature of the healthy human body in its interior, or in carefully covered situations on its surface, varies, according to the plan of measurement from 98.6° to 99.5° Fahr. (37° to 37.5° C.). It is about 98.6° in the well-closed axilla, and a few tenths of a degree higher (.5-1½ or 2° Fahr., .7° Fahr. average) in the rectum and vagina.
So, as far as I can tell it's not a sig-figs issue in conversion, but the actual original source that produced "98.6°". It almost seems like Wunderlich should've used 37.0° to 37.5°C to be consistent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even “around” is meaningless without context. A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10), a healthy person is around 37c (+/- 1) and a manufacturing process could call for a temp around 37c (+/- 0.1).
The accuracy is implied in the nimber of dogots usually. So 37 is +-1C, 40 is +-10, and 36.6 is +-0.1
The real answer is standard deviation or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accuracy is implied in the nimber of dogots usually. So 37 is +-1C, 40 is +-10, and 36.6 is +-0.1
Doesn’t work great when you want high precision on a number that ends with zeros or have a range that’s not a multiple of ten. The real answer is standard deviation or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even “around” is meaningless without context. A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10), a healthy person is around 37c (+/- 1) and a manufacturing process could call for a temp around 37c (+/- 0.1).
The accuracy is implied in the nimber of dogots usually. So 37 is +-1C, 40 is +-10, and 36.6 is +-0.1
As the article says, Wunderlich reached a conclusion of 37C in the 1800s, and that’s what we’ve used since then. The real problem appears to be that converting to Fahrenheit and reporting this as “98.6F” suggests an order of magnitude more precision than “37C”. 36.5C would still round to 37 but corresponds to 97.7F.
I thought the same, so I tried to find Wunderlich. The only source I could find ( https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/3-wHAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gb... ) seems to have Wunderlich reporting "98.6F", and then converting to Celsius: > The average normal temperature of the healthy human body in its interior, or in carefully covered situations on its surface, varies, according to the plan of measurement from 98.6° to 99.5° Fahr…