What you're all doing is meaningless as context is important, you're not debating an absolutely measurable thing, you're debating the interpretation of a word, which is by definition means that it depends on how people use it; an exact meaning is unclear when an interpretation is needed. (> language is ever evolving). Thus asking the question "Is water wet" as an absolute is a false question (to be exact in philosophical terms it's a "false dilemma").
To be able to actually pose this question you would have to define (= give an exact meaning to) every word (in this case especially what water is considered to be is important);
Example:
Question:Is Water Wet?
Definitions: Here we qualify "Water" as a single or more H2O molecules in a liquid state & we consider something wet when it bonds with another molecule in a liquid state.
Answer: There are 2 possible answers for 2 possible conditions:
Condition 1: There is only 1 H2O molecule present in the liquid
Conditional Answer: The water is not wet because it has not bonded with a molecule in a liquid state
Condition 2: There are 2 or more H2O molecules present in the liquid
Conditional Answer: The water is wet because it has bonded with a molecule in a liquid state, namely another 1 or more H2O molecule(s) in a liquid state
Now everything makes sense, you can impose different (thereby making it a different question) definitions and get different answers, but now the question actually makes sense and is answerable.
From this we can deduce that unless we disagree on the definitions, water in nature is always wet because molecules are never isolated.
Thus Uchies;Uchies wrote:
That's absolute fail logic right there... Wetness is just a descriptive word, it's not a scientific absolute... Think about it like this... Wetness has varying levels of degree... Something can be "kinda" wet, "very" wet, or "extremely" wet... Based on your logic, would you say "Wow, this pool is really wet?" ... Water is a liquid, it is not something that has been subjected to a liquid.
That's absolute fail logic right there...
He is definitely not more wrong than you are.
Sinister
