Joy Cao '24 and Jiacheng Kang '22|February 15, 2022
Is water wet? It’s a timeless conversation that has dogged philosophers for generations. And yet, oftentimes it’s the easy proofs that are often overlooked because of their deceptive simplicity. To me, proving that water is wet is tantamount to proving that fire is hot — or Groton students are stressed;it’s a difficult task because it’s just a fact.
Water is wet.
In order to answer this question, we need to first understand what something means to be wet. According to Oxford Languages, something is wet when it is “covered or saturated with water.” So let’s first deal with the case of whether water is “covered” by water. Let’s say you have a bucket of water. Ninety-nine percent of that water will be covered by other water molecules. And logically, if something is ninety-nine percent wet, you would say that it is wet. For instance, if your entire body was covered with water except for a small spot on your nose, you would be mostly covered with water. But regardless, you would label yourself as wet. Therefore, water, since it is mostly covered with water, is wet.
And now, onto the other case. Is water saturated by water? Something is saturated if it cannot hold any more of a liquid, as it would thus be thoroughly soaked. But any water is fully soaked with water. If you were to pour water on water, that water would not be absorbed by the initial water. Rather, it would just be more water. It would become a part of the initial water, which means that the water is neither absorbed or repelled. Therefore, water is saturated, which makes it wet. It’s just a fact.
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Water is not wet.
We can begin with the incident that made the question viral: two young men speculating in loud, contentious voices about whether or not a goldfish in a tank is wet. If we remove the goldfish from the tank, we would feel the moisture on its scales and wonder why on earth such a question is even being considered – if a goldfish embedded with thousands of beads of water can’t be considered wet, then what can? Isn’t this what establishes the basic definition of “wet”?
In considering the question of the goldfish, we open the door to understanding the wettitude of water. The goldfish, removed from water, is indubitably wet. “Wet” has multitudes of definitions, but this goldfish meets all criteria – having “replacement of area of the solid-air interface with a solid-liquid interface” (VanLang, PhD in chemical engineering), it meets a more rigorous definition, and having the tactile sensation of liquid “wetness”, it also fulfills the semantic definition. Putting the goldfish back in water, the rigorous definition is still fulfilled, but the semantic definition becomes a gray area – the goldfish in water cannot feel the substance that surrounds it, as it has no frame of comparison. Thus, the fish in water cannot experience semantic wetness. But, putting our faith back into the rigorous nature of rigorousness, the goldfish, both in the water or out, is wet.
Now, let’s replace the goldfish with a single molecule of water. Asking the same three questions we asked of the goldfish, we run into problems with each. Separated from other molecules, no definition of “wet” is satisfied: its interface is neither replaced by a different form of matter, nor covered or soaked with water. Back in the water, this molecule, like the goldfish, cannot experience the tactile sensation of liquid, and still has no displacement of interface. In essence, this molecule meets no definition of wetness, and thus cannot be considered wet.
Let us also consider this from a linguistic point of view. Why are things defined as wet in the first place? Words are used to formalize abstract concepts, and “wet” is used to formalize this merging of a solid and liquid interface. Water isn’t wet because there is no wetness to be associated with water – it is fluid, not wet. Fundamental elements and concepts, such as water, color, identity, and marriage, shape the qualities of other objects and concepts, but they themselves are independent in their existences.
As an expert in philosophy and the sciences, particularly in the realm of physical properties like wetness and water behavior, I can confidently delve into the multifaceted discussion sparked by the debate: "Is water wet?"
The argument presented in the article involves linguistic definitions, empirical observations, and conceptual analysis. Addressing the concepts used in the article:
-
Wetness: Defined as being "covered or saturated with water" according to Oxford Languages, it forms the crux of the discussion. Wetness involves both the physical presence of water and the sensory experience associated with it.
-
Goldfish Scenario: This scenario serves as an analogy to probe the nature of wetness. When removed from water, the goldfish is undeniably wet, meeting both rigorous and semantic definitions of wetness. However, when placed back in water, the tactile sensation (semantic definition) becomes ambiguous due to the lack of comparison.
-
Water Molecule: The article introduces the inquiry into whether a single water molecule can be considered wet. It explores the challenges in defining wetness at such a microscopic level, emphasizing the need for an interface and sensory experience to satisfy the concept of wetness.
-
Semantic vs. Rigorous Definition: There's a distinction made between the semantic understanding (perception or sensation) and the rigorous definition (physical displacement or saturation) of wetness. The article highlights the conflict that arises when applying these definitions to water at both macro and micro scales.
-
Linguistic Perspective: It touches upon the essence of how language shapes our understanding of concepts like wetness. The argument revolves around whether water itself, as a fundamental element, embodies the quality of being wet or if wetness is a property derived from its interaction with other materials.
In conclusion, the debate about whether water is wet is multifaceted, involving various perspectives: linguistic, empirical, and philosophical. The article engages in an exploration of the concept of wetness, questioning its applicability to water at different scales, from macroscopic observations to the molecular level. This discussion not only challenges our understanding of basic physical properties but also highlights the intricate relationship between language, perception, and scientific definitions.
