The Kikis are, generally speaking, much more knowledgeable about the details of chemistry. They might hang out around chemists, whose intellectual ancestors invented the precise definition of the word “chemical”.
What does “the precise definition of the word ‘chemical’” mean? Are you claiming that there’s a single definition that’s somehow “the definition”? Different scientific fields that actually do need precise definitions usually do have their own definitions.
We do live a world where Calefornia has a very precise definition of what a fish happens to be that includes bees. Scientists don’t have a monopoly on having precise definitions of terms, various fields do define their terms. I don’t think you can safely assume that there’s nobody that has a precise definition of the term chemical that goes along what the Boubas in your example mean.
Both the Kikis and the Boubas are not using words according to precise definitions. Kikis have intuitions that definitions that come out of one specific discourse are somehow privileged over definitions that come out of different discourses. They have misconceptions and believe that there aren’t competing definitions in every discourse that cares about precisely defining its terms.
The fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) with resolution V/1 adopted the Global Framework on Chemicals—For a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste. When Kikis’s are implying that such policy documents are problematic because they fail to have good definitions, that’s usually comes out of ignorance of how regulations work and not of a good understanding of where a regulation might lack a precise regulations.
I mean to use “the precise definition” to identify it as the one that isn’t “the specific definition” (based on the earlier comparison), not to say that it’s the only precise definition or anything like that. i.e. I could have said “the comparatively more precise definition of these two” instead.
This makes the mistaken assumptions that there are somehow two definitions among which the debate rests and that those match what any scientist believes.
While there might something a definition of chemical that multiple people who say ““uh, everything is chemicals, what do you even mean?” use, that’s not the precise definition of chemical that anybody in science who has actually a need for a precise definition would use.
As far as precision goes substance that falls under the preview of the REACH Regulation of the EU doesn’t feel to me more vague than normal Kiki usage of the term chemical.
What does “the precise definition of the word ‘chemical’” mean? Are you claiming that there’s a single definition that’s somehow “the definition”? Different scientific fields that actually do need precise definitions usually do have their own definitions.
We do live a world where Calefornia has a very precise definition of what a fish happens to be that includes bees. Scientists don’t have a monopoly on having precise definitions of terms, various fields do define their terms. I don’t think you can safely assume that there’s nobody that has a precise definition of the term chemical that goes along what the Boubas in your example mean.
Both the Kikis and the Boubas are not using words according to precise definitions. Kikis have intuitions that definitions that come out of one specific discourse are somehow privileged over definitions that come out of different discourses. They have misconceptions and believe that there aren’t competing definitions in every discourse that cares about precisely defining its terms.
The fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) with resolution V/1 adopted the Global Framework on Chemicals—For a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste. When Kikis’s are implying that such policy documents are problematic because they fail to have good definitions, that’s usually comes out of ignorance of how regulations work and not of a good understanding of where a regulation might lack a precise regulations.
I mean to use “the precise definition” to identify it as the one that isn’t “the specific definition” (based on the earlier comparison), not to say that it’s the only precise definition or anything like that. i.e. I could have said “the comparatively more precise definition of these two” instead.
This makes the mistaken assumptions that there are somehow two definitions among which the debate rests and that those match what any scientist believes.
While there might something a definition of chemical that multiple people who say ““uh, everything is chemicals, what do you even mean?” use, that’s not the precise definition of chemical that anybody in science who has actually a need for a precise definition would use.
As far as precision goes substance that falls under the preview of the REACH Regulation of the EU doesn’t feel to me more vague than normal Kiki usage of the term chemical.