Hey folks, we added a Community Post with two fun behind-the-scenes stories & associated photos related to this video. We're hoping to do this more frequently from now on as a way to add some context to our work. Check it out here: ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxStOEZTIfjhQarwYNtXqQmvU0pf14NFM0
I understand 'Animal, Vegetable and Mineral' but I do not understand why rock does not fit into the sub-group of mineral. Isn't everything composing a rock a mineral?
The next video on "what is a rock" will help address this, but you're essentially right: rocks are made up of minerals. The phrase "animal, vegetable, mineral" has a nice ring to it but it doesn't really have a clear scientific meaning, so it's easy for it to be confusing when you try to apply it to specific circumstances. To answer your specific question, rocks wouldn't be a sub-group of minerals because that would imply that you can subdivide minerals into rocks; it's the other way around. The phrase "mineral resources" is sometimes used for all geologic resources, but that's more a convenient phrasing than a literal definition.
@@ozarkoutsider I am going forward under the understanding that term "mineral" has a more narrowly defined meaning when used in a scientific discussion. Previously I had understood anything that came from the earth as being a mineral. I also have been puzzled when hearing dissuasion differentiating between clay and stone. To my sense the physical mechanical characteristics (does it deform in a plastic fashion or fracture?) determine which it is but I have heard geologists using the term in ways that surprised me. They obviously had a different definition. The way our language effects our thinking and conversations is interesting.
Yes, there are many cases where the technical definition of a term differs from how it's used colloquially or in other settings. A good example is "granite", which in geology refers to a specific composition of igneous rock, but in the building trades has a much broader meaning that has very little to do with the material's geologic identity (the same is true for "marble"). Lots of countertops described as "granite" or "marble" can make a geologist's eye twitch. Even "rock" and "stone" do this; they're often used as colloquial synonyms but "rock" really means the natural, unaltered material and "stone" means material that's been altered for human use (e.g. dressed for building or crushed for roadbeds). Same for "chert" and "flint" (again, natural material vs. that worked for spear points, arrowheads, etc.).
Hey folks, we added a Community Post with two fun behind-the-scenes stories & associated photos related to this video. We're hoping to do this more frequently from now on as a way to add some context to our work. Check it out here: ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxStOEZTIfjhQarwYNtXqQmvU0pf14NFM0
Another fascinating video, thank you.
The Ozarks are one of the most interesting natural regions in North America.
It's wonderful our country has so many great places.
Just got back from my walk by Onondaga cave, Missouri is a great place!! Thank You for another great video!!!!
I understand 'Animal, Vegetable and Mineral' but I do not understand why rock does not fit into the sub-group of mineral. Isn't everything composing a rock a mineral?
The next video on "what is a rock" will help address this, but you're essentially right: rocks are made up of minerals. The phrase "animal, vegetable, mineral" has a nice ring to it but it doesn't really have a clear scientific meaning, so it's easy for it to be confusing when you try to apply it to specific circumstances. To answer your specific question, rocks wouldn't be a sub-group of minerals because that would imply that you can subdivide minerals into rocks; it's the other way around. The phrase "mineral resources" is sometimes used for all geologic resources, but that's more a convenient phrasing than a literal definition.
@@ozarkoutsider I am going forward under the understanding that term "mineral" has a more narrowly defined meaning when used in a scientific discussion. Previously I had understood anything that came from the earth as being a mineral. I also have been puzzled when hearing dissuasion differentiating between clay and stone. To my sense the physical mechanical characteristics (does it deform in a plastic fashion or fracture?) determine which it is but I have heard geologists using the term in ways that surprised me. They obviously had a different definition. The way our language effects our thinking and conversations is interesting.
Yes, there are many cases where the technical definition of a term differs from how it's used colloquially or in other settings. A good example is "granite", which in geology refers to a specific composition of igneous rock, but in the building trades has a much broader meaning that has very little to do with the material's geologic identity (the same is true for "marble"). Lots of countertops described as "granite" or "marble" can make a geologist's eye twitch. Even "rock" and "stone" do this; they're often used as colloquial synonyms but "rock" really means the natural, unaltered material and "stone" means material that's been altered for human use (e.g. dressed for building or crushed for roadbeds). Same for "chert" and "flint" (again, natural material vs. that worked for spear points, arrowheads, etc.).