Liquid dishwashing detergents, not soap

  • Thread starter Thread starter symbolipoint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Liquid
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the terminology used in marketing liquid dishwashing detergents, specifically the distinction between "soap" and "detergent." Participants explore the implications of this distinction in both technical and common language contexts, as well as its relevance to consumer understanding and product labeling.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express irritation over the use of "soap" to describe liquid dishwashing detergents, arguing that these products contain no soaps and should be labeled as detergents.
  • Others suggest that the distinction may not be significant for the general public, who may use "soap" more broadly to refer to cleaning products.
  • A participant notes that the distinction between soaps and detergents is critical in a technical context, particularly for professionals like chemical engineers.
  • Concerns are raised about marketing claims and whether they could be misleading, particularly if consumers are led to believe they are purchasing a product that contains soap when it does not.
  • Some participants discuss the ingredients of Dawn dishwashing detergent, asserting that none of them qualify as soap by traditional definitions.
  • There is mention of the broader implications of language in product marketing, with examples drawn from various contexts, including other products and terminologies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the distinction between soap and detergent is trivial or significant. Some agree that it matters in marketing, while others believe it is a minor issue for everyday consumers.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential for confusion surrounding the definitions of soap and detergent, as well as the implications of these definitions in marketing and consumer perception. The conversation reflects varying levels of technical understanding among participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals involved in marketing, chemistry, consumer advocacy, or those curious about product labeling and terminology in cleaning products.

  • #31
DaveE said:
I'll propose a "Don Quixote Award" for people that excel in trying to control how language evolves and its common usage. Go for it! Fix language! Fight the good fight! Unfortunately I gave up long ago. Being weak of character, I can't help. I think "irregardless" was my Waterloo.
Communication is a two way street. Those busy changing it are just as "trying to control it" as those busy not changing it.

How many does it take?
If I start asserting that "red is blue" how many do I have to get behind me before you can't tell me I'm wrong anymore? :wink:


I'm having a heated discussion over on another forum about the uses of the word "theory".

A lot of people prefer to think of a theory as just some ideas some scientists like, and that, say, the Atomic Theory of Matter is "just a theory" and that evolution is "just a theory", and so might as likely be wrong as right. We all OK with that "change"?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Don't get confused and do this.
 
  • #33
JT Smith said:
Of course there are always those who resist change. They eventually die.
And so does everyone else.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913
  • #34
Post #31
Reaction: I am not sure if I "Like" it, or is it "Informative". I gave a "Like".
 
  • #35
symbolipoint said:
And so does everyone else.

Of course but the point is that the objections of a minority die along with the people.
 
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
If I start asserting that "red is blue" how many do I have to get behind me before you can't tell me I'm wrong anymore? :wink:

That's not a good example. Red is already blue provided you achieve an appropriate relative velocity.

But in general I think the answer is: Enough so that it's adopted by the dictionaries.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913
  • #37
JT Smith said:
Red is already blue provided you achieve an appropriate relative velocity
Towards us yes. A thread is probably on its last legs if grammar takes over.
 
  • #38
pinball1970 said:
Towards us yes. A thread is probably on its last legs if grammar takes over.
That;s not grammar! That's diction! Word choice! As in DICTIONary! It makes me so mad when people do thia!
:H:H:H

:wink:

(Time to close?)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913 and pinball1970
  • #39
JT Smith said:
Of course but the point is that the objections of a minority die along with the people.
When exactly did it become the "minority"?
 
  • #40
DaveC426913 said:
When exactly did it become the "minority"?

When the number fell below 50%.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
  • #41
This went well... Thread closed.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
16K