Ok, so first of all, greetings from Rexburg! I ran across this in the Rexburg Wal*Mart, and it was just too good of an opportunity to pass up . . . This could almost be my blog post in it's entirety, except that it got me thinking (I know, a dangerous thing). I remember reading a bumper sticker which said "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?" And while the presence/absence of my brain is certainly up for debate, I do believe I have actually changed my mind (Those of you who know me should be recovering from shock right about now).
In a previous post by Katie, I commented (quoting Dr. Nielson's father), that "everything is a chemical." However, the more that I think about that, the more that I became dissatisfied with it. Here's why: If everything is a chemical, then the word 'chemical' itself becomes redundant. We already have a word for it, namely 'something.' Yes, it's true that everything (at least everything we encounter in daily life) is composed of atoms, but if that's the only thing that differentiates a chemical from a non-chemical, that why have the word in the first place? Ultimately, I think we need to narrow our definition of the word 'chemical' so as to allow it to be useful. I therefore propose the following definition:
A 'chemical,' absent any special context, shall be defined as any substance which through its use, intended use, or probably use, is distinguished by its reactivity with other substances.
Under this example, bleach, which is intended to react with dye molecules and change their absorbance characteristics, would be considered a chemical, while the mops pictured above, which were (hopefully) not selected for their intended tasks because of their reactivity, would not be.
Sam out.
hahahahahah
ReplyDeletethat is too funny.
(oh, and thanks for updating the chem department events!)
I think your contextual definition is pretty good.
ReplyDelete