Is cardboard, wood?

[_echo]

The origin of this question is not relevant, but your opinions on it are important. It may seem like a simple question, but the depth of it can cause confusion, so I will try to explain it as best I can.

For the poll, please don't answer until after you have read everything.

First, lets take a look at the process of making cardboard.

The literal process is to take wood, grind it up into sawdust, run it through a chemical bath to split the fibers. The fibers are then mixed with water to make a much, which is then pressed into sheets, and dried into the thick paper. For the strength needed to make boxes, one sheet is molded into a zig-zag patter, and a sheet is glued to each side.

Now, you might be wondering about the chemicals. What is going on there? All the chemicals do is break up the fibers, nothing more. They do not chemically change anything. Effectively, it is the same as taking a pair of tweezers and plucking each fiber apart one at a time, but just much faster and on a larger scale.

My example for this is Steel. Steel is just purified iron. During the smelting of iron, coal is added to help eliminate impurities, resulting in what we call steel. The coal changes nothing about the iron itself, the iron is still iron. You can equate the coal to the chemical bath used in the separating of the fibers of wood.

Another argument someone brought up is carbon. Saying that the we are made of carbon, and coal is made of carbon, but we are not coal. That is true, but coal is not pure carbon, nor are we, though the carbon in us is the same as carbon in coal. So technically, if you could harvest the carbon within us, you could make diamonds, which are pure carbon. Same with coal. We are not carbon, but that is because there are many things that make up a human.

By this argument, you would not say cardboard is a tree, because a tree is not used, only the wood. Just as you would not say a hamburger patty is a cow, because only the beef is used, but you could say a hamburger patty is beef. Apply that logic to cardboard, and you can see that cardboard is indeed wood.

Anyhoo, vote away now, and feel free to post your opinion.

[WillieSea]

No matter how you break the 'wood' down, its still wood. Sawdust is wood, just in a different state.

Ice is water. Steam is water. Just in different states. But its still water. Changing its state does not change what it is.

Another analogy could be anything you build with another object. In the steel example, you can make a sword, but it still 'made out of' steel or to be exact, iron.

And I leave you with this thought, only alchemists can change lead into gold.

[Jheuloh]

I vote it's still wood, before & after.

Until cellulose is no longer cellulose, I shall call it wood.

[DsoS]

same here, wood is wood, weather or not its hard as a tree or soft as card board

[nottlong]

Wood is wood,it is still wood fiber,though rearranged. Iron does not become steel until carbon is added and modern steels can contain copper,nickel,chromium and or about 50 other elements. These added elements are what give steels there wide range of characteristics. We are not made of carbon though it is one of many elements that we are made up of. And yes coal is carbon the difference between a lump of coal and a diamond is not what it is made of but the tremendous heat,pressure and time that changes the crystalline structure of coal into diamond. Just as wood is rearranged in to cardboard or paper it is still wood.

[_echo]

Actually coal only partly carbon, though still mostly, where as diamonds are pure carbon, but I see your point

[Joben]

Weeeee fun question.

I'll be the disenting opinion.

Not wood.

The arrangement of the pieces is not an academic classification that can be dismissed out of hand. The arrangement is everything.

Imagine a box of Legos.

You can take them and build a house.

But if you take them apart where does the house go? It's gone. It is no longer a house. The arrangement has been destroyed.

What if you take apart that house and use the pieces to build a car?

Is the car a house? Of course not.

It just happens that both the house and the car were made out of Legos.

Wood and Carboard are both made of wood fibers.

They are similar in many ways, but wood is not cardboard.

[nottlong]

Just as a confusing point if you take your leggo house apart they are still leggo bricks.If you use those bricks to make something else it is still made of leggo bricks. The question comes down to is something the parts that make it up or the sum of the parts. And the key to it is your point of perspective.

[Khettienna]

http://www.xkcd.com/659/

An existentialist might argue that cardboard is wood only when fulfilling a purpose that wood fulfills. Generally speaking, cardboard does not provide structural support for architecture, or form the trunks or branches of trees and bushes. However, cardboard is sometimes made into furniture or used to fuel fires; it is on these occasions that the existentialist might agree that cardboard is wood. Even then, however, this would be a thin agreement, as the cardboard is not likely to be as sturdy a furnishing material as wood, and would likely burn substantially faster.

Of course, then one must address the matters of origin, intent, and potential. Wood can always potentially become cardboard, but never the reverse, regardless of intent. One might consider that to refute this point is to agree that the aforementioned hamburger patty is a cow; or, similarly, that the dead remains of a man are still a man. A portion or variation of an object is no longer the same object, but a new one.

In scientific terms, wood and cardboard do share a similar chemical composition (cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, and extractives). However, they are not identical, as the proportions of each chemical are quite different. Thus, they cannot scientifically be the same. If this doesn't seem a compelling argument, consider how chemically similar margarine is to plastic, and decide whether you want to spread plastic on your toast.

To sum and in conclusion, cardboard is not wood. They share many similarities, but are clearly two different object classes.

[WillieSea]

It still can be called wood as a loose term. Just as beef can be called cow, or steel can be called iron. They are 'not' identical, true, and that is why they have a 'new name' associated with them. Scientific terms are 'literal' terms, there are no shades of grey. Scientifically, is ice still water? No, because water is a liquid and ice is a solid. But chemically they are the same, so you could loosely say they are both water. But you could scientifically say they are both H2O.

My point is, cardboard could still be referred to as wood since it closely resembles the wood it was made from.

[HeyYou]

Cardboard is still wood. That is its base constituent. Can you plant it and get a tree? Nope, but, you can't plant a log, and expect to get a tree either. Can you build a house from it? Well, maybe not by some definitions, however.... I do see people living in structures made of cardboard, that they call "their house". And in all reality, what is hardboard, but a denser form of cardboard? It is a material commonly used in construction of all types, be it homes, or furniture.

[Joben]

http://www.xkcd.com/659/

That comic was the inspiration for my argument.

Also, your post was grand.

[_echo]

Weeeee fun question.

I'll be the disenting opinion.

Not wood.

The arrangement of the pieces is not an academic classification that can be dismissed out of hand. The arrangement is everything.

Imagine a box of Legos.

You can take them and build a house.

But if you take them apart where does the house go? It's gone. It is no longer a house. The arrangement has been destroyed.

What if you take apart that house and use the pieces to build a car?

Is the car a house? Of course not.

It just happens that both the house and the car were made out of Legos.

Wood and Carboard are both made of wood fibers.

They are similar in many ways, but wood is not cardboard.

Im arguing material, not objects.

A bottle is made of plastic, and if you cut it in half, it is not a bottle any more, but it is still plastic. Just as a cardboard box is only a box when it is shaped into a cube, but it is still cardboard that makes the box.

That seems to be the confusing part most people have. I am not arguing structure, as I would not call a cardboard box a tree, as it does not have everything that makes up a tree.

Catch my drift?

http://www.xkcd.com/659/

An existentialist might argue that cardboard is wood only when fulfilling a purpose that wood fulfills. Generally speaking, cardboard does not provide structural support for architecture, or form the trunks or branches of trees and bushes. However, cardboard is sometimes made into furniture or used to fuel fires; it is on these occasions that the existentialist might agree that cardboard is wood. Even then, however, this would be a thin agreement, as the cardboard is not likely to be as sturdy a furnishing material as wood, and would likely burn substantially faster.

Again, structure is not in question here as it is a very weak point. You can make a sword out of a 1" thick strip of steel, or a .1" strip of steel, but in the end, it is still a sword and still made of steel.

Of course, then one must address the matters of origin, intent, and potential. Wood can always potentially become cardboard, but never the reverse, regardless of intent. One might consider that to refute this point is to agree that the aforementioned hamburger patty is a cow; or, similarly, that the dead remains of a man are still a man. A portion or variation of an object is no longer the same object, but a new one.

As said, The fibers are pulled apart, so if you want to take the time, you could re-tangle them into a tree trunk. The chemicals used to split the fibers are the same as using tweezers, but just on a larger, much faster scale.

In scientific terms, wood and cardboard do share a similar chemical composition (cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, and extractives). However, they are not identical, as the proportions of each chemical are quite different. Thus, they cannot scientifically be the same. If this doesn't seem a compelling argument, consider how chemically similar margarine is to plastic, and decide whether you want to spread plastic on your toast.

I would request a source on where you got the chemical make-up of both wood and cardboard.

To sum and in conclusion, cardboard is not wood. They share many similarities, but are clearly two different object classes.

Once again, this is not a question of object/structure, but material. As the wood is not chemically changed in any way, and structure does not make a difference on what the material is, wood is wood is wood. A wood house and a wood chair are not the same objects, as one is, obviously a house and the other a chair, but they are both wood regardless.

[Joben]

Im arguing material, not objects.

A bottle is made of plastic, and if you cut it in half, it is not a bottle any more, but it is still plastic. Just as a cardboard box is only a box when it is shaped into a cube, but it is still cardboard that makes the box.

That seems to be the confusing part most people have. I am not arguing structure, as I would not call a cardboard box a tree, as it does not have everything that makes up a tree.

Catch my drift?

That is exactly my point, wood isn't made out of wood, it's made out of wood fibers. So is cardboard.

[Khettienna]

Well, if the question had been are both wood fibers, then that would be a different argument!

The materials came from a google search "chemical composition of wood", probably within the first page of links, if you are so interested.

[StarX]

I voted no on both choices, even after reading everything said in the thread. Ask any carpenter if they feel cardboard is wood and he will probably give you a long and boring lecture on the subject. Sure, if we break everything down to a molecular level we could even say that humans are water, as two-third of our body concistst of it!

Just tossing in my 2 eurocents!

[washington]

No-no here. If you really want, it can be wood product.

I'm an engineer so to me steel isn't the same as iron because it has different properties. But in normal speech I also say iron often.

[greenwarden]

Ask any carpenter if they feel cardboard is wood and he will probably give you a long and boring lecture on the subject. Just tossing in my 2 eurocents!

And you'd be right- my husband is a master carpenter, and he did give me a long lecture about cardboard absolutely not being wood. I wasn't bored, however.

My opinion? I keep it to myself, because for me the answer to this is more philosophical than scientific, and I don't share such thoughts in public, even amongst friends.

[grond]

Cardboard is paper, fiberboard is thicker paper, particleboard is wood. Paper is wood.

Glass is a liquid.

[_echo]

That is exactly my point, wood isn't made out of wood, it's made out of wood fibers. So is cardboard.

So there is no such thing as a wood chair? Wood table, house, wood anything? That is just being nit-picky IMO. If you want to be like that, then everything in the known universe is just protons, neutrons and electrons. as it would be wrong to say atoms.

At no point is the wood changed to anything else. Physically yes, but that doesn't change what something is. A wood chair is made of wood, however that is just the object, the wood is still wood, no?

Is wool thread not wool just because we dubbed wool that was spun into a thread to be called thread? How about a bullet? Is it not lead even though it was molded into its shape?

Is just seems so... ignorant, for lack of better a word, to try and call wood fibers something else when they are 100% identical to what we call wood. Name doesn't change what something is, just as I am still Kevin even though you call me Echo.

[grond]

We call them something else for reasons of clarity.

[_echo]

We call them something else for reasons of clarity.

Totally agree. This is the main point behind my reasoning. Sawdust is still wood, just called sawdust so it is not confused as something like a 2x4 plank.

Here is a link to some information that validates my point. And just because it is from WikiAnsweres does not invalidate the information.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_they_name_diamond_and_graphite_different_names_although_they_are_both_chemically_made_out_of_free_carbon

[WillieSea]

We call them something else for reasons of clarity.

That seems to be what I said in all my posts above.

But succinctly said by grond.

[Joben]

Echo, If I might summarize and simplify your argument thus would you consider it fair?

Wood and cardboard are the same because they are made of essentially the same stuff.

OK...reductio ad absurdum:

They are both made up of wood fibers.

And those wood fibers are made up of cellulose.

And that cellulose is made up of glucose chains.

And those glucose chains are made up of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen.

And those atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons.

Conclusion: Cardboard is wood because they are both made up of protons, neutron and electrons. Ergo, everything is wood.

At which point we realize that we defined the word "Wood" in a way so broad that it looses all power to delineate distinctions.

(As a general rule if you argument breaks a word, or tears apart the fabric of language, you're probably doing something wrong.)

Even the so called chemical elements are a rather arbitrary concept, names given to an arrangement of sub-atomic particles.

Why do we have the hubris to call this arrangement "hydrogen" and that one "Gold?" It's really all just wood.

I'm sticking to my guns here. The arrangement can not be dismissed. WOOD IS AN ARRANGEMENT.

All physical objects are only definable as arrangements.

You can't ask us to compare wood and cardboard without reference to their arrangement.

It is like asking us to add 2 and 3 without treating them as numbers.

What are we supposed to treat them as? Pumpkins? The 1812 Overture? Next Thursday?

[WillieSea]

I see no problem with saying cardboard is wood in speech.

If you are talking about lawyers and lawsuits, or scientific definitions and literal usage terms, then no, it is not wood, its cardboard and that is why we have the term cardboard.

But on the same note, all wood is not wood if you are going to break it down to the 'periodic table of elements' chart.

There are many kinds of wood, pine, maple, cedar, and they all are very much different from each other. But, they are still called wood. You would have to further specify what kind of wood it is, what color, what density (each tree can have different densities based on how quickly each ring grew), you could go on forever fine tuning what a piece of wood is.

Cardboard is still wood.