[k1027iwi]

It has been said: "The traditional division between 'organic' chemistry (the chemistry of carbon) and 'inorganic' chemistry (including the chemistry of transition metals) is no longer meaningful.  It all has merged to form ONE science: chemistry"

What are you views about this?

[Alberto_Kravina]

In a certain way I think that this is correct...however, I think that there is still a difference between "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry, only that the "border" is not so clearly defined as it used to be.

[Hunt]

So what are exactly the differences between Organic and Inorganic Chemistry?

[tamim83]

I think organic chemistry is more exclusive than inorganic chemistry.  It organic chemistry the only elements we really deal with is carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and the halogens (sometimes).  It seems like the other elements play "bit parts", for example Gringard reagents or transition metal catalysts (like Jones reagents mad of chromium). But in inorganic chemistry, I noticed that we look at both tranistion metal complexes and organic reactions.  We learned why we can use transition metals to catalize organic reactions.  We still, in a sense, studied organic chemistry.  It seemed like inorganic chemistry brought the "organic elements" together with the rest of the periodic table.  I was definitely expecting something very different. 

[Mitch]

k1027: Where did you get that quote?

[k1027iwi]

It was a question asked to me by my Inorganic Chemistry professor the other day when we were talking.  It just stuck in my mind, so I thought I'd post it here to see what you guys think of it.  I don't know where my professor came up with the quote though.

[k1027iwi]

I personally think that it is okay for the two to merge as one chemistry.  You see the two types of chemistry acting together in many reactions such as catalysis, oxidation, reduction, hydrogenation, oxymercuration... etc.  It is almost impossible to avoid seeing organic chemistry in inorganic chemistry and vice versa.

[AWK]

Looking from another point of view - there are two databases of crystal structures, namely CSD and ICSD (and some other minor databases -  as biomolecules,I mean number of structures!,, metallic and so on).
CSD treats organic compounds as having at least C-H or C-C bonds. The other are inorganic.

[rctrackstar2007]

I believe that there is still a major difference between the two. It is completely probable to focus on one "simple" area of chemistry and perhaps slimly to never using the other form. The difference is often noticable between people that struggle with organic chemistry and those that understand completely and love and embrace it. Those that have difficulties with math are also generally tending to lean toward the organic chemist side.

[mrdeadman]

It has been said: "The traditional division between 'organic' chemistry (the chemistry of carbon) and 'inorganic' chemistry (including the chemistry of transition metals) is no longer meaningful.  It all has merged to form ONE science: chemistry"

What are you views about this?

organic is entirely different than inorganic chemistry.

[whitewolf_573]

I think that , although inorganic chemistry and organic  chemistry are deferent , there are moments , when is better to have knowledges of both .

For example , I'm  very interested in inorganic chemistry, I think (i don't study  chemistry degree, I only know some chemistry  learned in high school ,the learned  in chemistry subject  when i were in biology , and all I read, search,experiment and study as self-taught) that sometimes know organic  can be useful for use as catalyst or other uses ( at this moment I don't remember any)

[rctrackstar2007]

a catalyst isn't quite organic chem either

yes, it is useful to know both but when you get farther down the line you lean toward one or the other

it's a big defining point for chemistry; those who can do organic and those who can do inorganic and those that can't do either

[Will]

I believe that there is still a major difference between the two. It is completely probable to focus on one "simple" area of chemistry and perhaps slimly to never using the other form. The difference is often noticable between people that struggle with organic chemistry and those that understand completely and love and embrace it. Those that have difficulties with math are also generally tending to lean toward the organic chemist side.

I certainly don't have any problems with math, and I definately prefer organic chemistry.

it's a big defining point for chemistry; those who can do organic and those who can do inorganic and those that can't do either

... and those that can do both!

organic is entirely different than inorganic chemistry.

I would disagree. For example, is this inorganic or organic?

And this?


Here is a quote from my organic chemistry book:
"So where does inorganic chemistry end and organic chemistry begin? The answer is that we don’t know and we don’t care. It is important these days to realize that strict boundaries between traditional disciplines are undesirable and meaningless. Chemistry continues across the old boundaries between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry on the one side and organic chemistry and biochemistry on the other. Be glad that the boundaries are indistinct as that means the chemistry is all the richer."

I completely agree with this statement!

[mike]

I used to do both organic and inorganic synthesis at the same time. I would make organic ligands for synthesising inorganic complexes.

[rctrackstar2007]

I believe that there is still a major difference between the two. It is completely probable to focus on one "simple" area of chemistry and perhaps slimly to never using the other form. The difference is often noticable between people that struggle with organic chemistry and those that understand completely and love and embrace it. Those that have difficulties with math are also generally tending to lean toward the organic chemist side.

I certainly don't have any problems with math, and I definately prefer organic chemistry.

it's a big defining point for chemistry; those who can do organic and those who can do inorganic and those that can't do either

... and those that can do both!

organic is entirely different than inorganic chemistry.

I would disagree. For example, is this inorganic or organic?

And this?


Here is a quote from my organic chemistry book:
"So where does inorganic chemistry end and organic chemistry begin? The answer is that we don’t know and we don’t care. It is important these days to realize that strict boundaries between traditional disciplines are undesirable and meaningless. Chemistry continues across the old boundaries between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry on the one side and organic chemistry and biochemistry on the other. Be glad that the boundaries are indistinct as that means the chemistry is all the richer."

I completely agree with this statement!

tou che (sp) that is a good point

I used to do both organic and inorganic synthesis at the same time. I would make organic ligands for synthesising inorganic complexes.

i also understand they are both used at the same time in many instances. i'm just merely stating that one tends to focus on one of them and refers back to the other for certain actions