Is Water Wet?

[TwinStorm He/Him]

Just now, Mattel said:

But that would just be psychology? 

Ahh, I just looked it up, and the study of human thought is "cognitive psychology." 

hot dang

ok

tbs I very tired and sleep deprived and want to argue philosphy

but thinking about youse right

cuz philosophers also used to study what the earth is made of, and that's truth, not human thought

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

1 hour ago, TwinStorm said:

I disagree

philosophy is the study of human thought

I believe philosophy is the study of human perception of reality. Or, not really the study, but rather the attempts we make to comprehend reality and keep on living. TwinStorm said philosophy is the study of truth, and I think that is accurate, in a way. Philosophy, however, is not the study of ALL truth. It is rather the search each of us make for a truth that we can believe in. In this way, philosophy is very similar to religion (not saying philosophy as a whole is like religion, just that they share this aspect). We NEED philosophy to help us understand the world. Without philosophy, what is the reason to live if we will all die? What is the point in creating if all will be destroyed? What is the point of truth, when happiness can be more easily attained through lies? Does free will even exist, if every action is a consequence of all that came before?

Returning to ɴɪɢʜʈ's original controversial statement, I wouldn't say grammatical arguments are necessarily philosophical (although they can be), although they do have a lot to do with individual interpretation, a limitation of language (which is a whole other debate).

Returning to the original argument: Water is not inherently wet (a molecule of water is not saturated with itself), but it can be if it is contact with other water. 

[TwinStorm He/Him]

5 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

I believe philosophy is the study of human perception of reality. Or, not really the study, but rather the attempts we make to comprehend reality and keep on living. TwinStorm said philosophy is the study of truth, and I think that is accurate, in a way. Philosophy, however, is not the study of ALL truth. It is rather the search each of us make for a truth that we can believe in. In this way, philosophy is very similar to religion (not saying philosophy as a whole is like religion, just that they share this aspect). We NEED philosophy to help us understand the world. Without philosophy, what is the reason to live if we will all die? What is the point in creating if all will be destroyed? What is the point of truth, when happiness can be more easily attained through lies? Does free will even exist, if every action is a consequence of all that came before?

Returning to ɴɪɢʜʈ's original controversial statement, I wouldn't say grammatical arguments are necessarily philosophical (although they can be), although they do have a lot to do with individual interpretation, a limitation of language (which is a whole other debate).

Returning to the original argument: Water is not inherently wet (a molecule of water is not saturated with itself), but it can be if it is contact with other water. 

I agree with that, but truth by definition, is not subjective. There is one universal truth that we live in.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

 

56 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

I agree with that, but truth by definition, is not subjective. There is one universal truth that we live in.

I understand what you're saying, but truth by definition is an infinitely large concept that is impossible to completely comprehend with a human brain. So, what would you define as truth? Only concrete things? I'm sure we can all agree that sand is "truth", since it exists. But is love truth? What about liberty? Is democracy truth? Most people will probably agree that a statement such as "blood is red" is truth. But what about someone who is raised in a society where the sound "blood" represents "yellow". Is language truth? Or is it simply a lie we all agree on? Does it matter? 

Does what someone believes in count as truth? Many things people believe are contradicted by the laws of physics. But what about the abstract? Where is the line drawn? Clearly, truth is more subjective than you think. Just some food for thought.

(Also, I never said philosophy WAS truth [although I would argue that the concept of philosophy is, while individual philosophies may not be] only that it was the result of a search for truth)

Edit: Realized I wrote ""blood" represents "yellow"" when I meant to say ""red" represents "yellow"", but I'll leave it since it still applies.

Edited January 25, 2025 by Hoid_Slayer

[TwinStorm He/Him]

Just now, Hoid_Slayer said:

 

I understand what you're saying, but truth by definition is an infinitely large concept that is impossible to completely comprehend with a human brain. So, what would you define as truth? Only concrete things? I'm sure we can all agree that sand is "truth", since it exists. But is love truth? What about liberty? Is democracy truth? Most people will probably agree that a statement such as "blood is red" is truth. But what about someone who is raised in a society where the sound "blood" represents "yellow". Is language truth? Or is it simply a lie we all agree on? Does it matter? 

Does what someone believes in count as truth? Many things people believe are contradicted by the laws of physics. But what about the abstract? Where is the line drawn? Just some food for thought.

(Also, I never said philosophy WAS truth [although I would argue that the concept of philosophy is, while individual philosophies may not be] only that it was the result of a search for truth)

philosophy is an active search for truth

but truth is what corresponds to reality, so if there is actual love, than that is true, but if not, it is false.

[Mattel]

12 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

I understand what you're saying, but truth by definition is an infinitely large concept that is impossible to completely comprehend with a human brain. So, what would you define as truth? Only concrete things? I'm sure we can all agree that sand is "truth", since it exists. But is love truth? What about liberty? Is democracy truth? Most people will probably agree that a statement such as "blood is red" is truth. But what about someone who is raised in a society where the sound "blood" represents "yellow". Is language truth? Or is it simply a lie we all agree on? Does it matter? 

 

So now we're getting into Subjective and Objective Truth now, ehh? Subjective Truth is our limited human capability trying to achieve Objective Truth which is True regardless of us. That's how I view it, at least.

36 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Returning to the original argument: Water is not inherently wet (a molecule of water is not saturated with itself), but it can be if it is contact with other water. 

I think this is right. It is the water molecules physically bonding with other molecules that makes the substance wet. It is the combination of a non water substance coming into contact with water and the water sticking to the object because it loves forming bonds. So water sticks to itself loosely which would make it wet. Right?

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

4 minutes ago, Mattel said:

I think this is right. It is the water molecules physically bonding with other molecules that makes the substance wet. It is the combination of a non water substance coming into contact with water and the water sticking to the object because it loves forming bonds. So water sticks to itself loosely which would make it wet. Right?

Sort of, but not really.

7 minutes ago, Mattel said:

It is the combination of a non water substance coming into contact with water and the water sticking to the object because it loves forming bonds.

Water molecules don't actually physically bond to other things to make them wet (since that would alter their chemical makeup). Additionally, I would argue that a water molecule can make a water molecule wet through direct contact (or whatever would pass for direct contact at this scale, since molecules don't actually ever tough. Maybe nothing is ever really wet!!)

9 minutes ago, Mattel said:

So water sticks to itself loosely which would make it wet. Right?

Yes... although I wouldn't use the word "sticking". The reason water can make things wet so easily is that it is a liquid, meaning it's molecules move around very loosely. And don't stay in the same place, like with a solid. When water seems to stick to something, like a blanket, it is because the blanket is hollow enough for water molecules to get in somewhere where gravity won't pull them out (I think, I might be wrong on this one).

[TwinStorm He/Him]

isn't wet by definition is "something that is covered by water" and water can't be covered by other water?

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

4 hours ago, TwinStorm said:

isn't wet by definition is "something that is covered by water" and water can't be covered by other water?

Why can't water be covered by other water? Is the water at the bottom of a cup not covered by the water on top of it?

[TwinStorm He/Him]

Just now, Hoid_Slayer said:

Why can't water be covered by other water? Is the water at the bottom of a cup not covered by the water on top of it?

its covered by water but a singular drop of water is not wet

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

13 hours ago, TwinStorm said:

its covered by water but a singular drop of water is not wet

A singular MOLECULE of water is not wet, as it is the smallest unit of water you can get. A DROP, however, is composed of roughly 1.67 x 10^21 molecules (yes, I just looked it up). Of these, only the ones on the facing outward would not be completely covered by water. The result of this is that a drop of water is indeed wet, but it's SURFACE - the part facing out that is not covered by other water - is not.

[scientificmotif]

The way *I* use the adjective "wet" is using it to refer to a macroscopic solid that has absorbed a liquid, and that the wetness is evident upon interacting with said object, since it causes the toucher to experience a sensation of "wetness". Therefore, no liquid can be wet, since the object that is wet is the solid that has absorbed it (or the object that is the combination of the two).

That being said, the argument is entirely subjective, owing to the fact that there is no single correct definition of "wet".

If you think wetness is the attribute of touching or being saturated with a liquid, water is wet.

If you think wetness is the attribute of being able to cause someone/something to feel the sensation of "wetness", water is wet.

If you think a wet object is a solid that has absorbed water and can cause the sensation of "wetness", then water is not wet.

Although, if you think of a body of water as one object, then water is not by default wet because since you have decided it is one object it cannot touch itself. If you think one object can't touch itself, that is... I don't feel like arguing a point even more subjective than "Is Water Wet?"

On 1/24/2025 at 5:04 PM, Ookla the Arbiter said:

I agree with much of your analysis, but disagree on parts. We have typically been using standardized definitions (or as close as you can to them) from sources such as Merriam-Webster or Oxford English Dictionary. I hesitate to ask, but did you read the rest of the thread? If you did, you'll note that in your analysis, you neglected to mention the main point the the "water is wet" side is making: that under most definitions, there is a "consisting of" or "containing" some sort of liquid. With this definition in mind (most credible sources have this in there, in fact, I have yet to see one that doesn't), water must be wet. You could argue the definition, but I don't think you could make a good argument against the conclusion, while the definition stands.

And yet, it is not, as the argument you cite fails to address one of the major points of the opposing argument. 

I feel like you don't get the entire point of my post. I wasn't really "arguing" either point. For me, neither "water is wet" or "water is not wet" are "opposing arguments". I was merely providing my perspective and how I define wet. I'd also like to note that dictionaries aren't the end-all be-all of how a word is used. Dictionaries don't by necessity define or create words on a societal level; it was society that gave the word meaning. Again, dictionaries do not create the definitions of the word, neither do dictionaries hold the exact definition of a word. The definition of a word depends on how it is used. Just because there is a precedent of using dictionary definitions doesn't mean I have to. The question wasn't "is water wet by the definition provided in dictionaries".

Since some people didn't get it the first time, I will repeat myself. I am saying that the argument is subjective and pointless.

As for many definitions mentioning "consisting of water": Wet has many uses. I'll admit that I didn't cover it in the first post, although it doesn't really matter for the point of my post. Some people don't use wet in the same way as others. People don't always use the dictionary definition of words when they use them.  Please stop hounding me about this.

Wet can be used in several different ways, and they aren't all the same. Case in point (From oxford dictionary, since you believe in dictionaries so much)

verb  cover or touch with liquid; moisten.

noun  liquid that makes something damp

adjective  covered or saturated with water or another liquid.

 

 

Now that I think about it, "wet paint" implies that a liquid can be wet, but since it's an adjective modifying paint, I think it would imply that a liquid saturated in another liquid is "wet". I no longer want to argue whether "water" in this argument refers to one H20 molecule or a whole body of said molecules in a liquid state, and whether objects are always touching themselves if you consider it as a whole object and not the atoms it is composed of, to infinity and beyond of arguing about what such-and-such word means.

 

Sorry for replying so slowly

Edited February 26, 2025 by scientificmotif

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

On 10/23/2024 at 10:03 AM, Ookla of the Shadows said:

To be hurt so by another member of the house of ravenclaw...

  Hide contents

I thought only slytherins could be so cruel

 

We slytherins aren’t cruel

Spoiler

I may or may not have dropped kicked a baby

Spoiler

It was just

 

 

[Immortal Platypus]

On 1/25/2025 at 2:55 PM, TwinStorm said:

isn't wet by definition is "something that is covered by water" and water can't be covered by other water?

a) no, that is not the definition of water (sorry, just saw this and felt the need to correct it) and b) water can totally be covered by other water.

On 1/26/2025 at 9:45 AM, Hoid_Slayer said:

A singular MOLECULE of water is not wet, as it is the smallest unit of water you can get. A DROP, however, is composed of roughly 1.67 x 10^21 molecules (yes, I just looked it up). Of these, only the ones on the facing outward would not be completely covered by water. The result of this is that a drop of water is indeed wet, but it's SURFACE - the part facing out that is not covered by other water - is not.

as I tire of saying "saturated" is part of the definition. By definition, all water is wet, even if it is the surface and not completely enveloped in water. In addition, saying something must be completely enveloped in water to be wet is simply untrue (both by definition and by common use of the word). When I say my arm is wet it doesn't need to be enveloped, if just the top is wet, I would still call my arm wet.

9 hours ago, scientificmotif said:

The way *I* use the adjective "wet" is using it to refer to a macroscopic solid that has absorbed a liquid, and that the wetness is evident upon interacting with said object, since it causes the toucher to experience a sensation of "wetness". Therefore, no liquid can be wet, since the object that is wet is the solid that has absorbed it (or the object that is the combination of the two).

That being said, the argument is entirely subjective, owing to the fact that there is no single correct definition of "wet".

If you think wetness is the attribute of touching or being saturated with a liquid, water is wet.

If you think wetness is the attribute of being able to cause someone/something to feel the sensation of "wetness", water is wet.

If you think a wet object is a solid that has absorbed water and can cause the sensation of "wetness", then water is not wet.

Although, if you think of a body of water as one object, then water is not by default wet because since you have decided it is one object it cannot touch itself. If you think one object can't touch itself, that is... I don't feel like arguing a point even more subjective than "Is Water Wet?"

 

I disagree with your definition, but I think I'll leave it at that for here. more analysis below.

Quote

I feel like you don't get the entire point of my post. I wasn't really "arguing" either point. For me, neither "water is wet" or "water is not wet" are "opposing arguments". I was merely providing my perspective and how I define wet. I'd also like to note that dictionaries aren't the end-all be-all of how a word is used. Dictionaries don't by necessity define or create words on a societal level; it was society that gave the word meaning. Again, dictionaries do not create the definitions of the word, neither do dictionaries hold the exact definition of a word. The definition of a word depends on how it is used. Just because there is a precedent of using dictionary definitions doesn't mean I have to. The question wasn't "is water wet by the definition provided in dictionaries".

 

I think that by terms, "water is wet" and "water is not wet" are required to be opposing arguments, but that's not important. Dictionaries are not the final word, but they are a reliable way to find a consistent definition. Please note that in most (if not all) of my responses I qualify my statement of "water is wet" with the term "definitionally" or "by definition." This is meant to clarify that by the definition cited, water is wet. You are not required to use dictionary definitions, I just personally think that it weakens an argument to rely on a non-standardized (or, again, as close as we can get) definition. It's a matter of personal opinion.

Quote

Since some people didn't get it the first time, I will repeat myself. I am saying that the argument is subjective and pointless.

 

of course it is. The very topic is pointless, and depends on your definition of "wet." However, nearly any topic (if not just plain any topic) will have subjectivity thrown in, so being subjective is not necessarily a cause of it being pointless.

Quote

As for many definitions mentioning "consisting of water": Wet has many uses. I'll admit that I didn't cover it in the first post, although it doesn't really matter for the point of my post. Some people don't use wet in the same way as others. People don't always use the dictionary definition of words when they use them.  Please stop hounding me about this.

 

I didn't view what I said as "hounding" you about dictionary definitions, but if you saw it that way, I apologize.

Quote

Wet can be used in several different ways, and they aren't all the same. Case in point (From oxford dictionary, since you believe in dictionaries so much)

verb  cover or touch with liquid; moisten.

noun  liquid that makes something damp

adjective  covered or saturated with water or another liquid.

personally I think that the bolded sentence feels passive-aggressive, and I'd appreciate it if you avoided things like that. I'm sure you didn't mean to, and again, I apologize if my response annoyed or frustrated you. Anyway, yes, wet can be used in different ways. However, due to context clues, we can see that it uses the adjective definition, so the verb and noun definitions don't need to come into play. 

Quote

Now that I think about it, "wet paint" implies that a liquid can be wet, but since it's an adjective modifying paint, I think it would imply that a liquid saturated in another liquid is "wet". I no longer want to argue whether "water" in this argument refers to one H20 molecule or a whole body of said molecules in a liquid state, and whether objects are always touching themselves if you consider it as a whole object and not the atoms it is composed of, to infinity and beyond of arguing about what such-and-such word means.

I hadn't thought of that argument, but because it is an adjective describing paint, I personally think that it implies that the paint is wet (because of itself, not because another liquid acted on it), and/or has the capability to make other things wet.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

3 hours ago, Ookla the Arbiter said:

as I tire of saying "saturated" is part of the definition. By definition, all water is wet, even if it is the surface and not completely enveloped in water. In addition, saying something must be completely enveloped in water to be wet is simply untrue (both by definition and by common use of the word). When I say my arm is wet it doesn't need to be enveloped, if just the top is wet, I would still call my arm wet.

Yes… but personally I don’t believe that anything can be filled with itself (since the word filled, in my personal judgement, implies there is something to fill, meaning it is not all the substance that is filling). Basically, a drop of water is saturated with water, but a single molecule of water isn’t since it is made up of nothing other than a singular unit of water. (Interestingly, what you get out of this is a wet mass that is not actually made up of individually wet parts.

3 hours ago, Ookla the Arbiter said:

Since some people didn't get it the first time, I will repeat myself. I am saying that the argument is subjective and pointless.

It is. We know.  Although as you probably also know, human behavior is rarely rational (at least by our common perception, but that is another matter). If people want to fight over a pointless and subjective argument, power to them! (And it’s fun)

 
People here are mentioning a lot of subjectivity, and @Ookla the Arbiter rightfully pointed out how there are often discrepancies between how dictionaries define words and how they are actually used. Guys, everything will see those discrepancies, not just dictionaries. Without getting too philosophical, words aren’t real (yes, this is a callback to the philosophical debate earlier). We simply all agree they represent a certain thing, and so they do. What this debate is doing is it is forcing us to take a deep look at why we assign things meaning the way we do. If you thought a word meant something (let’s say X), and a dictionary tells you it means something else (let’s say Y), does that mean you have to change your way of thinking? Because it certainly meant X to you. Food for thought.

 

To prove the fault ones of definitions: To be wet, something has to touch a liquid, the word touch implies physical contact, and since molecules are incapable of physical contact… nothing is wet! 

[Immortal Platypus]

2 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Yes… but personally I don’t believe that anything can be filled with itself (since the word filled, in my personal judgement, implies there is something to fill, meaning it is not all the substance that is filling). Basically, a drop of water is saturated with water, but a single molecule of water isn’t since it is made up of nothing other than a singular unit of water. (Interestingly, what you get out of this is a wet mass that is not actually made up of individually wet parts.

the word isn't filled, it's saturated which means "full of moisture : made thoroughly wet." By that definition, I think that a single molecule of water would qualify, but it's a matter of personal opinion.

Quote

It is. We know.  Although as you probably also know, human behavior is rarely rational (at least by our common perception, but that is another matter). If people want to fight over a pointless and subjective argument, power to them! (And it’s fun)

 
People here are mentioning a lot of subjectivity, and @Ookla the Arbiter rightfully pointed out how there are often discrepancies between how dictionaries define words and how they are actually used. Guys, everything will see those discrepancies, not just dictionaries. Without getting too philosophical, words aren’t real (yes, this is a callback to the philosophical debate earlier). We simply all agree they represent a certain thing, and so they do. What this debate is doing is it is forcing us to take a deep look at why we assign things meaning the way we do. If you thought a word meant something (let’s say X), and a dictionary tells you it means something else (let’s say Y), does that mean you have to change your way of thinking? Because it certainly meant X to you. Food for thought.

 

To prove the fault ones of definitions: To be wet, something has to touch a liquid, the word touch implies physical contact, and since molecules are incapable of physical contact… nothing is wet! 

hate to break it to you, you quoted/mentioned the wrong guy. That wasn't me. That was @scientificmotif.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

5 hours ago, Ookla the Arbiter said:

hate to break it to you, you quoted/mentioned the wrong guy. That wasn't me. That was @scientificmotif.

You’re right . I’m sorry, I just saw it on your post and didn’t realize you were quoting someone else. My point, however, still stands.

[Immortal Platypus]

4 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

You’re right . I’m sorry, I just saw it on your post and didn’t realize you were quoting someone else. My point, however, still stands.

...

except the little bit at the end. The definition doesn't say that something has to touch a liquid. other than that, I largely concur.

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

Answer to the question is yesnt 

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

On 3/5/2025 at 9:54 PM, सत्य हेर्ने said:

Answer to the question is yesnt 

Hmm… these words could hold wisdom. But not in the way you think. Rather, they offer insight into the contradictive nature of human thought and expression. Yes, wise words indeed…

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

Just now, Hoid_Slayer said:

Hmm… these words could hold wisdom. But not in the way you think. Rather, they offer insight into the contradictive nature of human thought and expression. Yes, wise words indeed…

So are those words accepted.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

Just now, सत्य हेर्ने said:

So are those words accepted.

They are. I deem thee a Radiant of the order of the waterwonderers. You have now bonded an philosophyspren. 

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

4 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

They are. I deem thee a Radiant of the order of the waterwonderers. You have now bonded an philosophyspren. 

Weeeee!

Water before wet

water before river

journey before destination 

[Lord Ruler Sylphrena He/Him]

This thread has caused my brain to expand and has made think about wetness on a deeper level then I ever have before, many thanks to all of you.

Personally I don't think water is wet or perhaps I don't think it is right to describe it as wet in conversation regardless of semantics. If you are being technical I suppose you could say that it is touching itself and is therefore wet but I think a modified Incredibles quote is pertinent here, "If everything is wet nothing will be". If water is by itself it nullifies its own wetness or at the very least using wet as a descriptor becomes irrelevant. I could also argue that water is in a quantum state of wetness that only locks in upon observation but that might be above my pay grade.

There is also another quote that is semi relevant, "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to here it does it make a sound?" Obviously it does but that fact is kind of nonsensical to point out much like water being wet.

I've also heard that fact that fire is hot as a similar statement on this thread but I feel that is a bad comparison. Fire is hot but would you describe fire as "on fire" is fire lighting itself on fire? I don't think so, fire can only make other things on fire. The same way dirt isn't dirty on it's own but if I cover myself I dirt I become dirty. The correct descriptor is that water is liquidy or watery and not wet. Wetness isn't a innate trait but rather a applied status. My final example is paint is isn't painted but when I cover my room in paint it becomes painted.

Hopefully those of you who have made the claim water is wet see the error of your ways now.

Actually discard everything I have previously said I now know the definitive way to solve this conundrum. We must all create/find elemental beings of water and ask if they feel wet.

Edited March 11, 2025 by Lord Ruler Sylphrena

[IcedOutPenguin He/Him]

Water is wet

END 
OF
DISCUSION

(Also lava is wet too)