The point I'm trying to make is that if 0-100 is a useful mental range, and people seem to be arguing that it is given boiling and freezing points, then for the range of temperatures humans can reasonably occupy the scale should be as close to that range as possible.
This is different from an intuition argument. My wife, an Australian, finds nothing intuitive about 72 F as room temperature, just as I don't find anything intuitive about 22 C. You're right I'd adapt if I had to, but no one lives anywhere for very long at 72 C.
> for the range of temperatures humans can reasonably occupy the scale should be as close to that range as possible.
Why? I don't think I'll die at 110 degrees Fahrenheit and that's off the scale. And I routinely make use of things which get hotter than I can live in. I don't live in my kettle or my oven.
Sure, but you will die at 80 C, and that isn't off the scale. So which mapping is closer?
Again, I'm making my argument about weather. Clearly for other arbitrary temperatures this doesn't apply. If you're actually arguing for a single temperature scale for cooking, weather and anything else, then I think most people will end up concluding it'll be what you're most used to working with.
This is different from an intuition argument. My wife, an Australian, finds nothing intuitive about 72 F as room temperature, just as I don't find anything intuitive about 22 C. You're right I'd adapt if I had to, but no one lives anywhere for very long at 72 C.