[Juan R.]

Due to social and academic pressure, the canonical chemistry program is renamed to canonical science program.

The formulas and concepts are exactly the same, but the “nomenclature” changes. For example, I prefer talk about canonical processes instead of talk about generalized chemical processes and after begin a heated debate with “archaic” chemists that opine that electrochemical reaction is not a chemical process.

Therefore, if you opine that solubility is a physical property (as one read in many organic textbooks) or if you opine that is a chemical property (as Joachim Schummer), you would use the canonical theory.

Perhaps you are an inorganic chemist claiming that ammonia molecule is pyramidal (as one read in many textbooks) and thinking that rotation-vibration states are unimportant for “all chemical purposes”. Perhaps you opine that ammonia inversion is important only for physicists (MASER), but other chemists can disagree with you. In fact, some physical chemists claimed recently that ammonia inversion IS a chemical reaction because bonds are broken and formed.

The canonical theory is based in a 70% of chemical theory and a 30% of Liouvillian quantum mechanics and entropy. You can call to the canonical theory as you prefer chemistry, physics, “biology”, “alchemy”, or if you prefer “psychology” (according to previous Demotivator beliefs).