Is Water Wet?

[Argenti he/him]

On 1/26/2025 at 11:45 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.

Thank you.

[Lord Stormer]

I've posted here a month or two ago, and felt compelled to give a new insight.

There's history why this debate ends up discussing definitions. In the modern world, we define things concretely - by their objective distinctions, but in ancient times it was more about functions and essences - how a particular object means to us. If we turn back time and invite some people to talk about this matter at, for instance, a forum of ancient Rome, I think this discussion will go very differently.

Let me give an example. What is a chicken? The ancients simply believed that it's any animal that can be killed for poultry, and tastes like it. Today we believe it as flightless bird with a specific DNA that happens to be massively cultivated. That's the reason that if we bring someone living 2,000 years ago to the 21th century, he / she will percieve a car as some exotic horse (or an elephant, depending on culture). They see functions, not defining fundamentals.

I advise that we approach this discussion more carefully. The question of "is water wet" is styled more towards perception than purely objective meanings. We just happen to live in the 21th century, where education and work culture formed our understanding of the world that is unrecognizable from the rest of history. So here we are.

If I should answer the question the way it demanded, then water is wet. Because when I spray it on myself, it unpleasantly lingers for some time, and when the wind blows, my body feels colder.

While I fully believe the current way of understanding is superior in so many ways, I feel the old way is still in many ways relevant. I suggest if you are arguing on definitions, don't make your answers arbitrary in essence.

Edited March 25, 2025 by Lord Stormer

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

7 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

I've posted here a month or two ago, and felt compelled to give a new insight.

There's history why this debate ends up discussing definitions. In the modern world, we define things concretely - by their objective distinctions, but in ancient times it was more about functions and essences - how a particular object means to us. If we turn back time and invite some people to talk about this matter at, for instance, a forum of ancient Rome, I think this discussion will go very differently.

Let me give an example. What is a chicken? The ancients simply believed that it's any animal that can be killed for poultry, and tastes like it. Today we believe it as flightless bird with a specific DNA that happens to be massively cultivated. That's the reason that if we bring someone living 2,000 years ago to the 21th century, he / she will percieve a car as some exotic horse (or an elephant, depending on culture). They see functions, not defining fundamentals.

I advise that we approach this discussion more carefully. The question of "is water wet" is styled more towards perception than purely objective meanings. We just happen to live in the 21th century, where education and work culture formed our understanding of the world that is unrecognizable from the rest of history. So here we are.

If I should answer the question the way it demanded, then water is wet. Because when I spray it on myself, it unpleasantly lingers for some time, and when the wind blows, my body feels colder.

While I fully believe the current way of understanding is superior in so many ways, I feel the old way is still in many ways relevant. I suggest if you are arguing on definitions, don't make your answers arbitrary in essence.

Hmm… 

I understand your argument, and it seems to have some aspects that draw back to the debate on philosophy and the meaning of words. However, there are some parts I disagree with.

7 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

Let me give an example. What is a chicken? The ancients simply believed that it's any animal that can be killed for poultry, and tastes like it. Today we believe it as flightless bird with a specific DNA that happens to be massively cultivated. That's the reason that if we bring someone living 2,000 years ago to the 21th century, he / she will percieve a car as some exotic horse (or an elephant, depending on culture). They see functions, not defining fundamentals

Yes, an ancient person might see a modern car and perceive it as an exotic horse, because of their different worldview. That worldview, however, doesn’t make them right. In fact, in this case they are very, very wrong.

7 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

I advise that we approach this discussion more carefully. The question of "is water wet" is styled more towards perception than purely objective meanings. We just happen to live in the 21th century, where education and work culture formed our understanding of the world that is unrecognizable from the rest of history. So here we are.

I find your claim about the nature of the question interesting. In essence, yes, one could argue that all such questions are subjective and styled towards perception simply because we all interpret the meaning of words (communal lies) differently.

And yet, in a way, that is the very trap this argument seeks to avoid. The point if this argument is to attempt to create an objective answer to a question that is subjective by nature, through debate and, yes, definitions that we can agree upon as guidelines.

7 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

If I should answer the question the way it demanded, then water is wet. Because when I spray it on myself, it unpleasantly lingers for some time, and when the wind blows, my body feels colder.

While I fully believe the current way of understanding is superior in so many ways, I feel the old way is still in many ways relevant. I suggest if you are arguing on definitions, don't make your answers arbitrary in essence.

And yet, is true philosophy not being able to see beyond what we can perceive and believe in what we cannot? It was this trait that kickstarted the cognitive revolution and got humanity to where it is today.

All answers about language will always be arbitrary. And so it is our arguments that count.

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

On 10/23/2024 at 10:15 AM, Through The Living Glass said:

WATER IS NOT WET

IT MAKES THINGS WET

Fire makes things hot but that dosent mean fire isnt hot.

ice makes stuff cold, but that dosent mean ice isn’t cold

 

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

20 minutes ago, TheBestTruthwatcher said:

Fire makes things hot but that dosent mean fire isnt hot.

ice makes stuff cold, but that dosent mean ice isn’t cold

 

huhuh

. . .

lol why did you qrote my post from October? 

[Argenti he/him]

Just now, Through The Living Glass said:

huhuh

. . .

lol why did you qrote my post from October? 

I may have done some light necromancy. 

Water is wet because it isn't one thing.

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

16 minutes ago, Argenti said:

I may have done some light necromancy. 

Water is wet because it isn't one thing.

But it is one substance

[Tinwatcher I don’t mind]

25 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

huhuh

. . .

lol why did you qrote my post from October? 

Oh it was from October 

I need to start reading the dates

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

6 minutes ago, TheBestTruthwatcher said:

Oh it was from October 

I need to start reading the dates

Ye

It's all good though

It was funny

[Through the living jeff he/him(straight)]

There are seven pages to this??!

[Terrisman]

58 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

But it is one substance

Why does that preclude it from Wetness? Also, no its not.

[Argenti he/him]

59 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

But it is one substance

Can you not have many layers of cloth? They're clearly distinct things, and interact. 

[Lord Stormer]

18 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Hmm… 

I understand your argument, and it seems to have some aspects that draw back to the debate on philosophy and the meaning of words. However, there are some parts I disagree with.

Yes, an ancient person might see a modern car and perceive it as an exotic horse, because of their different worldview. That worldview, however, doesn’t make them right. In fact, in this case they are very, very wrong.

I find your claim about the nature of the question interesting. In essence, yes, one could argue that all such questions are subjective and styled towards perception simply because we all interpret the meaning of words (communal lies) differently.

And yet, in a way, that is the very trap this argument seeks to avoid. The point if this argument is to attempt to create an objective answer to a question that is subjective by nature, through debate and, yes, definitions that we can agree upon as guidelines.

And yet, is true philosophy not being able to see beyond what we can perceive and believe in what we cannot? It was this trait that kickstarted the cognitive revolution and got humanity to where it is today.

All answers about language will always be arbitrary. And so it is our arguments that count.

I understand yours too. Take note I'm not a philosopher at all.

When I first read this thread, I saw this question was devised to instigate a deeper contemplation, with a sense of levity. I believe this question can be answered in both traditional and modern ways, but since "wet" is heavily associated with perception, I don't see a viable solution to this question without it. Therefore I give a traditional answer, a very simple one, that is fulfilling. Surely you can provide an answer from a scientific perspective too, and that does not conflict.

It's impossible to be deny perception entirely. While the ancients are quite subjective, still we are after all sentient beings trying to understand our world. Good answers are the ones that can benefit us.

I pose you another example. Is space cold?

Scientifically yes, as measurements give temperature a few degrees below absolute zero.

But space is actually also not cold, since conduction and convection does not exist. If you are left drifting in a vacuum (inside a suit), it would take hours for you to freeze, since you dissipate heat slowly through radiation.

My point is that you can answer a question with different perspectives, but there is always a demand that answers should be satisfying. "Is water wet" is a very open question, so there are several ways it can do.

Space is both cold and not (very) cold - both are correct - but the 2 answers are relevant in different ways. Scientists working on sensitive equipment would use the first one, but astronauts planning how to survive with little power as possible takes the second. More than one correct answers, but relevant in different ways.

Edited March 26, 2025 by Lord Stormer

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

11 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

Why does that preclude it from Wetness? Also, no its not.

That's true, it's three-

However I believe we're talking about straight H2O, yes?

11 minutes ago, Argenti said:

Can you not have many layers of cloth? They're clearly distinct things, and interact. 

But can substances not interact differently with other substances?

 

y'all why am I letting myself get sucked back into this

[Argenti he/him]

13 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

But can substances not interact differently with other substances?

Only when that other substance has some innate  property. A substance will act the same with two different inert substances. Honey sticks to itself just as well as it sticks to a spoon, does it not?

 

13 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

y'all why am I letting myself get sucked back into this

It's important 

Edited March 25, 2025 by Argenti

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

nopenopenopenopenoepnoepnopenopenopenopenope not getting sucked back in goodbye 

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

4 hours ago, Through The Living Glass said:

But it is one substance

Water is not a single object; it can be broken down into several smaller units, such as liters, drops, and even molecules. These objects can, however, be referred to communally as, say, a pool.

2 hours ago, Through The Living Glass said:

nopenopenopenopenoepnoepnopenopenopenopenope not getting sucked back in goodbye 

Noooooo Glass don’t leave ussssssssss

::::((