Logic Lessons Lost

Abstract

This commentary piece contains two criticisms of textbook definitions. One is the old definition of element (cannot be separated into...), to the correct definition (a class of atoms with the same atomic number). The second criticism concerns the correct name for a bonded atom as opposed to a free atom. These two species are not the same entities. The major suggestion here involves renaming all free nonbonded atoms atomes, while continuing to call bonded atoms what we have always called them, atoms. The vast majority of our atoms will then happily remain atoms, save the noble gases. The positive consequences of this renaming convention are briefly discussed.

Reply to “Using the Right Words in the Right Way: Atom, Molecule, Element, and Compound”

“…The fact that our definition is presented in terms of the chemical bond, which seems to Prof. Giunta to represent a more intricate concept, relates to the important realization that a molecule cannot be understood without reference to chemical bonding. This is evident when reading our article and from the previous definitions provided by Jensen, Matson, and Clark. − We have all disputed the importance of the chemical bond. Correspondingly, it would seem that the criticism of our new definition of molecule based on chemical bonding applies only to us, which is incorrect given the breadth of discussions of chemical bonding in the literature.…”

Improving the Understanding of Chemistry by Using the Right Words: A Clear-Cut Strategy to Avoid Misconceptions When Talking about Elements, Atoms, and Molecules

“…Clark , suggests a complicated method for solving the problem, by speaking of atomes and atoms to refer to isolated atoms such as inert gases and bonded atoms in molecules, respectively. This definition, although interesting, can be ambiguous, thus generating even more confusion.…”

Atoms versus Nuclei: Response to Logic Lessons Lost

“…Clark specifically notes the improper use of the term atoms to describe nuclei within a poly nuclear molecule and asks the reader: “What then do we call the C in CO 2 ? Jensen does not say” . Actually, Jensen does.…”

“…I wish to thank Professor Clark for his recent contribution rekindling Professor Jensen’s three-part series − . Clark’s additional commentary will serve as a reminder for educators to pay close attention when defining chemical terms in the classroom.…”