Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#1
Water's not wet?  Really?  If being wet is, as the Merriam Webster dictionary puts it, "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)" (Webster), then is water not wet?  Oceans, fountains, heck, even the smallest droplet of water is consisting of, containing, and covered with water, as there it is water and each bit of that water is surrounded by, at least, microscopic specs of water.  In essence, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there is no way water is not wet.  Thank you, kind reader, for listening to my rant about how water is wet, and I thank you profusely for agreeing with this fact.
Sincerely, P.T. Wile

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#4
My daughter loves this sort of stuff. When she can't think of anything else to say, she will sometimes say 'A strawberry isn't a berry, but a banana is!' 

Often when she says that, I will reply with, 'So is a tomato,' to which she will say, 'You're a tomato!' because she doesn't like to hurt other peoples' feelings when she retorts, and that is the best insult she can offer. 

I should ask her for some other things like this which she likes to say because I know that there are more, but I can't remember any of them right now.

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#5

ArDeeBurger Wrote: My daughter loves this sort of stuff. When she can't think of anything else to say, she will sometimes say 'A strawberry isn't a berry, but a banana is!' 

Often when she says that, I will reply with, 'So is a tomato,' to which she will say, 'You're a tomato!' because she doesn't like to hurt other peoples' feelings when she retorts, and that is the best insult she can offer. 

I should ask her for some other things like this which she likes to say because I know that there are more, but I can't remember any of them right now.

That's nice... peolove

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#6
A great philosophical question. Is the water itself wet or does it cause wetness? If you touch water it certainly feels wet, yet maybe it's merely giving you the sensation of wetness. When you drink water it wets your mouth and throat, but that still doesn't answer whether water itself is actually wet. In the end it may be an unanswerable question where there is no right or wrong answer. Philosophy sure seems to have a lot of those.

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#7

Haust Wrote: Yeah, it's like saying "paint isn't painted". It's just paint; if you paint the paint, you either have covered-up paint or you have paint of a different color depending if it's wet or not.

Most modern paint actually IS painted.


Paints you buy in stores are often just white bases which are then dyed to your selected color. That's why there's always a big paint section at hardware stories with big spinning machines.

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#8
Why is this a philosophical argument anyway? Look at it from an atomistic viewpoint. You see that the action of being wet involves a connection of anything and water molecules. By definition, water molecules are constantly in connection to eachother and therefore water is wet. If in reply some says 'But it misses the philosophical meaning!' then maybe they should step back and get a better phrase. Water is wet, likewise you can discuss how diffusion of the paint amongst itself allows it to 'paint' itself.

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#11
Ah, I'm not really sure if I hate or love this kind of question! DrakanBook But you can't rely only on Mariam Webster Dictionary to prove your point, because in other Dictionaries "wet" has a bit more different description, for example, Oxford Dictionary -  covered with or containing liquid; Collins Dictionary -  if something is wet, it is covered in water, rain, sweat, tears, or another liquid.

So, if you want to make your case you need to come with other arguments, from everything I know I could draw a conclusion that the water can't be wet since it can't be covered in other liquids it can be mixed with them but not covered if you'll bring up the argument that the oil can't mix with water, then I'll tell that that's a good point, but still not enough to prove that the water is wet because the oil is hydrophobic, oil molecules are repelled by the water molecules, as a conclusion, we don't have 2 liquids that cover each other but two liquids that repel each other, so, it means that we have 2 liquids that are really close to each other but don't affect each other. 

So as a conclusion, I believe that the water can't be wet, it is technically dry  DrakanGlasses

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#13
DrakoRem, let's say you put lotion on your skin and it starts to sink in.  Would it be mixed into your skin, or covered?  Both.  So you cannot say mixing prohibits covering.  That was about the most unorthodox example out there, but it assists my point.  And it shows that, yet again, the dictionary proves my point.

Remember the Merriam-Webster definition I mentioned?  "Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)" (Webster).  Merriam Webster is one of the most reputable and respected dictionaries out there, and water being wet would fit three of the requirements when it only needs to fit one.

And so it is settled, water is wet. (Note, this topic is really fun.  I sincerely thank all who have participated thus far.)
DrakanGlasses
Sincerely, Wile

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#14
Let's continue. To wet something, originally, would be to make contact with liquid water. As such, I hold that encasing something in a hydrophobic compound does not, in fact, wet it. Rather, it is now oiled or greased, depending on whether the compound was liquid or solid.

Hydrophilic compound, such as alcohol, though, would count.

However, as wet is an adjective to describe the saturation of an object with water or a water-like compound, water itself cannot be wet. It is merely the dampening agent

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#15
I think the difference here comes from your definition.  You say it describes the saturation of an abject with liquid.  I have two things against that:

1. Let's say you get an umbrella covered in water droplets.  It's not saturated because of the material it's made out of, but I think just about anyone would say it's wet.  Hence, saturation is not a requirement for being wet.

2. Again, remember the Merriam-Webster definition I mentioned?  "Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)" (Webster).  Merriam Webster is one of the most reputable and respected dictionaries out there, and water being wet would fit three of the requirements when it only needs to fit one.  I've shown in this post how saturation is not a necessary requirement of being wet, in my last post, I showed how mixing does not prohibit covering, and I have given the dictionary definition.  To counter my argument, tell me, how does water being dry fit into the dictionary definition mentioned above?

peodead
Sicnerely, Wile

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#16

Wilewriter17 Wrote: I think the difference here comes from your definition.  You say it describes the saturation of an abject with liquid.  I have two things against that:

1. Let's say you get an umbrella covered in water droplets.  It's not saturated because of the material it's made out of, but I think just about anyone would say it's wet.  Hence, saturation is not a requirement for being wet.

2. Again, remember the Merriam-Webster definition I mentioned?  "Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)" (Webster).  Merriam Webster is one of the most reputable and respected dictionaries out there, and water being wet would fit three of the requirements when it only needs to fit one.  I've shown in this post how saturation is not a necessary requirement of being wet, in my last post, I showed how mixing does not prohibit covering, and I have given the dictionary definition.  To counter my argument, tell me, how does water being dry fit into the dictionary definition mentioned above?

peodead
Sicnerely, Wile

Does that mean we are all wet? I contain blood, a liquid, and water, in my body right now, but I am not covered in water, therefore I am dry. What I mean to say is that I don't think that dictionary definition is completely accurate. However, I do think water is wet, because if I pour water on myself, I become wet, and if I pour water on some more water, it would then become wet, but there is already water.

:)

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#17
North Wind, this is an old one, but it's never to late to respond.  Read your wording carefully.  You said "I contain blood, a liquid, and water, IN my body right now."  If those things are in you, then the inside of you is wet, not the outside (unless your sweating or bleeding), which means that definition would still hold up.  But yeah, in the end, you and I agree on the main point...

Water is wet.

Sincerely, Wile

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#18

Wilewriter17 Wrote: North Wind, this is an old one, but it's never to late to respond.  Read your wording carefully.  You said "I contain blood, a liquid, and water, IN my body right now."  If those things are in you, then the inside of you is wet, not the outside (unless your sweating or bleeding), which means that definition would still hold up.  But yeah, in the end, you and I agree on the main point...

Water is wet.

Sincerely, Wile

That makes sense. Maybe there is something to do with the movement of liquids inside the human body?

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#19
Of course there are people who say that, they are very fond of sea travel, especially in resort countries where there is an opportunity to ride on yachts. We, for example, vacationed in Spain a month ago, and there were a lot of yachtsmen. We rented a yacht through this site https://yachtcharterinspain.com/ anyone who wants to go to Spain - I advise to book a yacht there!

Re: This is for all those "water's not wet" people...

#20

Bananalloy Wrote: Why is this a philosophical argument anyway? Look at it from an atomistic viewpoint. You see that the action of being wet involves a connection of anything and water molecules. By definition, water molecules are constantly in connection to eachother and therefore water is wet. If in reply some says 'But it misses the philosophical meaning!' then maybe they should step back and get a better phrase. Water is wet, likewise you can discuss how diffusion of the paint amongst itself allows it to 'paint' itself.



This.