Wetness is being saturated with water. Water is saturated by water by a base definition; you cannot be more saturated with something than literally being it, a 100% saturation value. Water is wet. And now so is the object in contact with it.
It’s less consistent to the example to say that fire is burnt and transferring that burnt, and more that fire is hot and a material affected by fire is also hot. Fire is hot. And now so is the object in contact with it. Being burnt is a secondary reaction as a result of the primary transference of the heat properties in an overabundance. Much like your skin shriveling is a result of being wet for prolonged periods. It’s a secondary reaction to the primary transferance of properties.
Water transfers its wetness, fire transfers its heat. Water is wet.
What you’re equating water wets water is that heat heats heat, which could make semantic sense, but is a useless statement. The same argument, made for other properties, also becomes ridiculous: “light brightens light”, “scratching scratches the scratching”, “aging ages time”, etc.
Definitions are always imperfect, but some are imperfecter than others.
Also, see definition of henges; Stonehenge is not a henge, despite being the source of the word.
Heat and water are not analogous because heat is pure energy. Water is a physical liquid. You’re laser focused on a single definition of a word that’s used in many other ways. Anyone trying to tell you that water isn’t wet is engaged in semantic foolery.
You’re laser focused on a single definition of a word that’s used in many other ways.
You’re putting your finger on the entire argument there: words are used differently in different contexts, and thus mean different things. The whole discussion is banal.
Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it.
A volume can’t be wet??? Man the random busted definitions you guys make up on the spot (instead of using a dictionary) just so you can win is really funny.
The liquid itself can’t be wet. It’s like saying fire is burnt.
Burnt is something that was on fire but no longer can sustain the flame.
It is more analogous to “dry” (something that used to have water but no longer).
Saying “water is wet” is like saying “the fire is burning” which we say all the time.
This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence. But the meaning of words is fluid, like how “literally” now also means “figuratively”, so if you don’t, that’s okay. In scientific literature, where precise language matters, “wet”, “wetness”, “wettability” and “wetting” all refer to the process I’ve linked, however.
This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence.
What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.
Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.
What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.
Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.
This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.
Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.
What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions. I can do that as well, even if PhilosophyTube is going to beat my ass for it:
But I was talking about the scientific background of the term. This is not some hyper-specific term, but how it’s used in almost* all of science.
*(The other somewhat common use is as a synonym of “humid”, often used in climate amd atmospheric science. Which is irrelevant in the discussion “is water wet”)
Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.
I’m lost as to why you are citing this.
This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.
Nobody throughout this thread is using specific jargon from the field of statistical physics.
We’re simply discussing what the word “wet” means. I am not interested in your niche scientific subchapter on “wetting” in a 1951 theoretical physics textbook.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
What that wikipedia article is explaining is that if you are interested in the meaning of a word and not just factual information about it, an encyclopedia (wikipedia) entry is the wrong place to look because “unlike a dictionary”, it’s not focused on the meaning of words.
What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions.
Uh, you linked it. Thats your source. I just used it because you linked it as a source you trust?
You accidentally linked “wetting”, but if you look at link you sent and go to the top of the page where it says
For other uses of ‘Wet’, see Wet (disambiguation)
And then click that and you’ll see
Look up wet, wetness, or wetting in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
It’s literally just 2 clicks inside the source you linked as the end-all, be-all lmao.
You’re right, I wouldn’t have just linked a dictionary entry as a thought ending cliche until you tried to and I showed you what your own source was saying about it.
I have no actual stake in this discussion beyond the fun of arguing. I could continue, for example by pointing out that in the article about “Encyclopedia” you linked it says
There are some broad differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Most noticeably, encyclopedia articles are longer, fuller and more thorough than entries in most general-purpose dictionaries.[3][20] There are differences in content as well. Generally speaking, dictionaries provide linguistic information about words themselves, while encyclopedias focus more on the things for which those words stand.[6][7][8][9]
But I get the feeling you’re taking this too seriously, and I’m not enjoying this anymore. So let’s end it here, I hope you have a good day!
Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it. The liquid itself can’t be wet. It’s like saying fire is burnt.
Wetness is being saturated with water. Water is saturated by water by a base definition; you cannot be more saturated with something than literally being it, a 100% saturation value. Water is wet. And now so is the object in contact with it.
It’s less consistent to the example to say that fire is burnt and transferring that burnt, and more that fire is hot and a material affected by fire is also hot. Fire is hot. And now so is the object in contact with it. Being burnt is a secondary reaction as a result of the primary transference of the heat properties in an overabundance. Much like your skin shriveling is a result of being wet for prolonged periods. It’s a secondary reaction to the primary transferance of properties.
Water transfers its wetness, fire transfers its heat. Water is wet.
Unfortunately this is a flawed analogy.
What you’re equating water wets water is that heat heats heat, which could make semantic sense, but is a useless statement. The same argument, made for other properties, also becomes ridiculous: “light brightens light”, “scratching scratches the scratching”, “aging ages time”, etc.
Definitions are always imperfect, but some are imperfecter than others.
Also, see definition of henges; Stonehenge is not a henge, despite being the source of the word.
Heat and water are not analogous because heat is pure energy. Water is a physical liquid. You’re laser focused on a single definition of a word that’s used in many other ways. Anyone trying to tell you that water isn’t wet is engaged in semantic foolery.
You’re putting your finger on the entire argument there: words are used differently in different contexts, and thus mean different things. The whole discussion is banal.
A volume can’t be wet??? Man the random busted definitions you guys make up on the spot (instead of using a dictionary) just so you can win is really funny.
Burnt is something that was on fire but no longer can sustain the flame.
It is more analogous to “dry” (something that used to have water but no longer).
Saying “water is wet” is like saying “the fire is burning” which we say all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
That is the actual definition tho
That’s the wikipedia entry for wetting.
This is the definition of wet:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet#English
Adjective
This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence. But the meaning of words is fluid, like how “literally” now also means “figuratively”, so if you don’t, that’s okay. In scientific literature, where precise language matters, “wet”, “wetness”, “wettability” and “wetting” all refer to the process I’ve linked, however.
What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
In other words, it’s just you.
So then what are we arguing about? In common definition, as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.
If you choose to define “wet” differently or in specific scientific contexts maybe water isn’t wet.
Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.
This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions. I can do that as well, even if PhilosophyTube is going to beat my ass for it:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wet
But I was talking about the scientific background of the term. This is not some hyper-specific term, but how it’s used in almost* all of science.
*(The other somewhat common use is as a synonym of “humid”, often used in climate amd atmospheric science. Which is irrelevant in the discussion “is water wet”)
I’m lost as to why you are citing this.
Nobody throughout this thread is using specific jargon from the field of statistical physics.
We’re simply discussing what the word “wet” means. I am not interested in your niche scientific subchapter on “wetting” in a 1951 theoretical physics textbook.
What that wikipedia article is explaining is that if you are interested in the meaning of a word and not just factual information about it, an encyclopedia (wikipedia) entry is the wrong place to look because “unlike a dictionary”, it’s not focused on the meaning of words.
Uh, you linked it. Thats your source. I just used it because you linked it as a source you trust?
You accidentally linked “wetting”, but if you look at link you sent and go to the top of the page where it says
And then click that and you’ll see
It’s literally just 2 clicks inside the source you linked as the end-all, be-all lmao.
You’re right, I wouldn’t have just linked a dictionary entry as a thought ending cliche until you tried to and I showed you what your own source was saying about it.
I have no actual stake in this discussion beyond the fun of arguing. I could continue, for example by pointing out that in the article about “Encyclopedia” you linked it says
But I get the feeling you’re taking this too seriously, and I’m not enjoying this anymore. So let’s end it here, I hope you have a good day!