There really isn't a problem.
Organic Chemistry deals with those compounds that are best described under the rules of Organic Chemistry. If this seems obvious and tautologous - it is because it is.
We don't consider carbonates to be organic, simply because their behaviour is better described under the rules of Inorganic Chemistry - even though carbonates contain carbon.
Nearly all of the other carbon containing compounds are better described under the rules of Organic Chemistry.

I am aware that many simple carbon compounds (carbonates, cyanides, etc) are quite rightly classed along with other "inorganic" compounds. Broadness of the definition of "organic" isn't the real issue. The main problem is that the definition of organic chemistry is too narrow. For instance, consider the following pair of reactions:





The first one is a fairly standard example of nucleophilic aromatic substitution, and is classed under "organic chemistry". The second reaction is pretty much the same, except, by virtue of the fact that none of the atoms involved is carbon, it is classed under the label of "inorganic", despite the fact that it is explained by the exact same principles as the first one. Apart from the types of atoms involved, it is pretty much the same as the first reaction. Considering them as belonging to seperate branches in this way is simply arbitary - we don't go around dividing sets of reactions based upon common principles into seperate categories of "nitrogenous chemistry" and "anitrogenous chemistry", for instance, so why do this for carbon? The only difference between "organic" chemistry and those parts of "inorganic" chemistry that involve molecules as complex as, and sharing similar properties to those treated in "organic" chemistry is that we know of fewer examples of the latter. This is purely an artifact of the state of research; creating new carbon containing compounds is generally given a much higher priority than say, creating new tricyclic carbon-free aromatic compounds, as the former has more immediate applications (drug design, understanding biochemistry), whereas the latter types of compound are largely considered at this stage to be mere curiosities. As such, our knowledge of complex carbon containing compounds dwarfs that of equivalent complex non-carbon compounds. However, the mere fact that us humans are more ignorant of the latter is poor grounds for considering them to be different categories.

Arcanyn wrote:I am aware that many simple carbon compounds (carbonates, cyanides, etc) are quite rightly classed along with other "inorganic" compounds. Broadness of the definition of "organic" isn't the real issue. The main problem is that the definition of organic chemistry is too narrow.

Perhaps, but Chemists are comfortable with the convenience of the definitions: 'Organic' and 'Inorganic'.
The real problem arises with non-chemists that assume that organic has to do with living systems, and inorganic with non-living ones.

rainbow wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:I am aware that many simple carbon compounds (carbonates, cyanides, etc) are quite rightly classed along with other "inorganic" compounds. Broadness of the definition of "organic" isn't the real issue. The main problem is that the definition of organic chemistry is too narrow.

Perhaps, but Chemists are comfortable with the convenience of the definitions: 'Organic' and 'Inorganic'.
The real problem arises with non-chemists that assume that organic has to do with living systems, and inorganic with non-living ones.

But it is the case, is it not, that "organic" as a term originally arose out of the "living" thing, and still carries some degree of that bias (though mutated hugely)? The reason there is so much focus on organic chemistry (to whit: "creating new carbon containing compounds is generally given a much higher priority than say, creating new tricyclic carbon-free aromatic compounds, as the former has more immediate applications (drug design, understanding biochemistry), whereas the latter types of compound are largely considered at this stage to be mere curiosities") is still largely an outgrowth of the fact that we're carbon-based life-forms.

If we were, say, silicon-based, or something entirely different, we'd be fucking around with chemistry more related to that, surely?

If ever we discover or develop some other form of life, I'd bet you a snogging to a kicking that we'd start focussing on that shit real quick.

Of course, I'm absolutely stuffed after a fuck-off long day at work, so I may be talking complete bollocks. Please chime in either way. I'm always up for learning more. (Heh... I was recently discussing refrigeration systems with a dude who does the shit professionally. He offered me a book on the subject, and I think he was a little surprised when I eagerly accepted the offer. I now have in my (temporary) possession the standard textbook for refrigeration apprentices. It's proving an interesting read, though I'm only a chapter or so in. Soooo much to fucking learn, so few hours in a day.)

Goldenmane wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:I am aware that many simple carbon compounds (carbonates, cyanides, etc) are quite rightly classed along with other "inorganic" compounds. Broadness of the definition of "organic" isn't the real issue. The main problem is that the definition of organic chemistry is too narrow.

Perhaps, but Chemists are comfortable with the convenience of the definitions: 'Organic' and 'Inorganic'.
The real problem arises with non-chemists that assume that organic has to do with living systems, and inorganic with non-living ones.

But it is the case, is it not, that "organic" as a term originally arose out of the "living" thing, and still carries some degree of that bias (though mutated hugely)?

No, not in this a Chemistry forum. If it were a Woo forum perhaps, but here we want to keep it real.

The reason there is so much focus on organic chemistry (to whit: "creating new carbon containing compounds is generally given a much higher priority than say, creating new tricyclic carbon-free aromatic compounds, as the former has more immediate applications (drug design, understanding biochemistry), whereas the latter types of compound are largely considered at this stage to be mere curiosities") is still largely an outgrowth of the fact that we're carbon-based life-forms.

If we were, say, silicon-based, or something entirely different, we'd be fucking around with chemistry more related to that, surely?

If ever we discover or develop some other form of life, I'd bet you a snogging to a kicking that we'd start focussing on that shit real quick.

Of course, I'm absolutely stuffed after a fuck-off long day at work, so I may be talking complete bollocks. Please chime in either way. I'm always up for learning more. (Heh... I was recently discussing refrigeration systems with a dude who does the shit professionally. He offered me a book on the subject, and I think he was a little surprised when I eagerly accepted the offer. I now have in my (temporary) possession the standard textbook for refrigeration apprentices. It's proving an interesting read, though I'm only a chapter or so in. Soooo much to fucking learn, so few hours in a day.)

Of course.

rainbow wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:I am aware that many simple carbon compounds (carbonates, cyanides, etc) are quite rightly classed along with other "inorganic" compounds. Broadness of the definition of "organic" isn't the real issue. The main problem is that the definition of organic chemistry is too narrow.

Perhaps, but Chemists are comfortable with the convenience of the definitions: 'Organic' and 'Inorganic'.
The real problem arises with non-chemists that assume that organic has to do with living systems, and inorganic with non-living ones.

But it is the case, is it not, that "organic" as a term originally arose out of the "living" thing, and still carries some degree of that bias (though mutated hugely)?

No, not in this a Chemistry forum. If it were a Woo forum perhaps, but here we want to keep it real.

I'm not understanding your post right now.

Can you please elaborate?

Please edit the quotes in your post

rainbow wrote:Please edit the quotes in your post

Done.

Response?

Goldenmane wrote:

rainbow wrote:Please edit the quotes in your post

Done.

Response?

Thanks, that makes it clear.
What I was trying to say is that in a Chemistry forum, we shouldn't get duistracted by common misconceptions around the word 'Organic', as everybody should understand the term as Chemists use it.
If it were a forum about using natural fertiliser in farming, then 'organic' has a completely different meaning - although a rather wooly meaning.

rainbow wrote:
What I was trying to say is that in a Chemistry forum, we shouldn't get duistracted by common misconceptions around the word 'Organic', as everybody should understand the term as Chemists use it.
If it were a forum about using natural fertiliser in farming, then 'organic' has a completely different meaning - although a rather wooly meaning.

But, since this isn't just a forum for chemists, but also for anyone who happens to drop in with a passing interest in chemistry, perhaps we SHOULD thrash out what "organic" means. Especially given the rather woolly meaning of "organic" in farming.

Just a thought.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

rainbow wrote:
What I was trying to say is that in a Chemistry forum, we shouldn't get duistracted by common misconceptions around the word 'Organic', as everybody should understand the term as Chemists use it.
If it were a forum about using natural fertiliser in farming, then 'organic' has a completely different meaning - although a rather wooly meaning.

But, since this isn't just a forum for chemists, but also for anyone who happens to drop in with a passing interest in chemistry, perhaps we SHOULD thrash out what "organic" means. Especially given the rather woolly meaning of "organic" in farming.

Just a thought.

This.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Especially given the rather woolly meaning of "organic" in farming.

Just a thought.

That's actually quite simple. If a farmer uses the chickenshit produced on his own estate for fertilising, it's organic. If he buys it from his neighbour, a chicken-farmer, it's industrial and therefore abominable.