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.
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.