Why be cyrptic about chemisty?
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
Why be cyrptic about chemisty?
It seems like a lot of time and energy could be saved by simply calling the elements by their names and adding respective scripts when "translating" chemistry to English. If there is a common name than use it; such as water:H_20.
If any one is a chemistry buff and wants to elaborate on how this can't work, and maybe even enlighten me as to how to make sense of this better, it would be much appreciated.
Or to simply discuss simple compounds (as that is all I'm able to do so far) just to practice the language that would be nice as well.
~~~~~~EDIT~~~~~~
Ok, let me see if I can make this more clear as people are not understanding what I'm asking, or just want to have an answer.
There is a name that is pure chemistry for something example: CO_3^2-; That is "carbonate". How would one naturally translate CO_3^2- to "carbonate" unless someone told them; they could not! Why not to make things less cryptic; call it "carbon-oxygen_3^2-"(=CO_3^2)-.The meaning of the numbers could be taught in a day, if it takes that long. Based on what I know of chemistry, there is no good reason, other than the historically fallacious: "thats how its done". OR there is the: "its shorter". To that I say: it's shorter to say, but takes 10 times longer to learn. It's difficult enough as it is to memorize the innumerable qualities an element can have, let alone a compound. Why gum it up with some hybrid language that is a class all in it self?
Hope that helps.
-
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm
Re: Why be cyrptic about chemisty?
Think of it like math:
Rather than writing five only, we mostly write 5.
So too rather than writing Sulphuric Acid only, we mostly write h2so4.
So both the 'why' and the 'why not' are valid: you may chose the why or the why not at any time and switch them up from any time to any time.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
I was asking why it is done a certain way. I can think of lots of ways to say chemicals, that is not the problem.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
Please read the new edition of the Original post, in addition to the original post.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Common names are probably fine for simple chemical compounds, but they'd just be confusing for more complex ones. For example, describe this one in nontechnical language: 2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol, 3-Ethyl -2 -Hydroxy-2-Cyclopenten-1-One.
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
More casual names of inorganic compounds like "carbonate" and "cuprous bromide" are named that way because they emphasize important properties of the compound. E.g. carbonate and sulfate are not just talking about cation-oxygen ratios (which differ), they're talking about the charge. This would not be obvious if you said carbon 3xoxygen, vs. sulfur 4xoxygen.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
We could do away with a lot of nonsense vocabulary, and still be able to communicate properties because the scripts are there.
They decided to make several names for the same thing, when they can always just call it what it is; it doesn't make sense.
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Obviously there are a lot of chemical names, and a lot of rules, but I'm not sure that they really overlap that heavily. Are you only asking about inorganics like carbonate, or is there another class of names for compounds that also overlaps?
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
One name is all that is needed. My conclusion is that they are holding on to historical fallacy, and the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that they make things complicated intentionally, so as to hide knowledge from the common man; to maintain socio-economic gaps.
I mean this: any time a compound isn't being referred to (in chemistry) by its chemical name; as in H20: There is an overlap.
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Obviously it is frustrating when you're first learning it, but honestly, I'm usually more angry at what companies use to describe their chemical products. If I look at the ingredients of food, makeup, shampoo, etc., I almost always see very non-specific names. E.g. one product by Pantene advertises "amino protein," which is total gibberish. Every protein is composed of amino acids, so what is special about an amino protein?
In contrast, language in pure science is always about trying to have precise communication. Of course idiosyncrasies occur, but I feel like most of these either refer to extremely common molecules, or to important procedures that are named after their discoverer.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
does "7-carbons-6-hydrogens-2-bromines" lack a charge or isotope?
what is missing from that name?
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Where "benzyl" refers to the fact that the carbon attached to the right-most bromine is on a benzene ring. "Benzene," in turn, is actually a historical name, but it's so common that naming the ring "1,3,5-cyclohexatriene" would just be cumbersome.
In fact the special name "benzene" also reminds you that the molecule isn't just a cyclocarbon with double bonds, but that it has delocalized pi-bonds all around, so it's really an equal distribution of electrons around the ring. This makes it fall under the heading of "aromatic" molecules, which include other historically named molecules like furan.
TMI? Does your class even discuss organic nomenclature?
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
No confusion at all.
- hallam
- Posts: 39
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 6:04 pm
- Location: Philly
Plus, using the symbols and coding allows for a more precise transference of knowledge especially between different spoken languages. CO_3^2 is carbonate whether you speak English and call it carbonate or not.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023