Making a Splash on Mars

I tend to agree with bns ... I wouldn't call oil "wet" either ... it's not an intuitive use of the word. Maybe a better definition would be:

water = liquid H2O
is wet = contains liquid H2O

Then on this definition, the statement "water is wet" makes more sense.

Although I might note that English is a pre-scientific language, really based more on perception than scientific concepts. Defining it this way possibly changes the meaning of the words.

I hear rhetorical phrases like "water is wet" a lot, and they are odd sounding to me. Is the statement "water is wet":

(a) always true,
(b) sometimes true, or
(c) never true?

This question similarly applies to statements like "God is good." Same overall problem arises. For some people this statement is a tautology (true by definition). For others it's sometimes true (empirically verified). For others it is false.

What's odd is I've never heard this phrase "water is wet." Has anyone else besides Yaaarg?

There is no law against making up your own definitions for words if you like, but I've related the book definition.

Yeah. All the time. It goes like this. Person A makes a statement. Person B perceives that statement to be completely obvious, and so mutters, "Yeah, and water is wet, too."

At least, that's how it's used among the people I know.

I see where you're coming from with the similarity to "God is good", but I don't think they compare directly. Water is wet, by several of the many precise definitions for wet. It's a trivial solution, like "7 is a factor of 7". However, with God, there's the question of existence. To those that believe in God, maybe God == Good by definition. But to those that do not, it can be argued that something that does not exist cannot be inherently good or bad.

I suppose if you really want to get existential you could say that water doesn't exist either, that the world is an illusion created and manipulated by your mind... but I think most would agree that the existence of water is less often disputed than the existence of God.

Wow, I've never heard that before.

Well, using your definition, is it (a), (b) or (c)?

I say (b). Water can be wet, but it's not necessarily the case at all times. As you noted, water can exist in all three states simultaneously.

Which makes me think ... another famous rhetorical question is "Is the pope catholic?" I think the answer is not obvious.

Since some popes have turned out be anti-popes (or so called by later generations) it would stand to reason that an anti-pope is anything but a catholic. So the answer is: probably ... but it really depends though on if the pope is really an anti-pope or not.

but if you asked the question 'Is an anti-pope a Catholic' the answer would once again be obvious

...... then again

It may be possible to define liquid as a substance as anything with sufficient viscosity to conform easily to its container yet retain some minimal surface tension.
This would mean the water (H2O), which has three forms, is only 'truely' wet (containing the properties of liquid or having liquid inherent, even if only temporarily) when in liquid form.
This would make the statement of "Water is wet" a two step process (i.e., Water is liquid+Liquid is wet) rather than a straight jump. This would also help to validate that gas/solid forms, while not being liquid could also be said to have properties of 'wet' (containing the properties of liquid or having LIQUID INHERENT, even if only temporarily). A wet towel would also have liquid inherent, temporarily, to its structure.
This is a very sketchy definition, but it seems to fill some gaps and unify some thoughts.

I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary for definitions of the English language. As posted by someone earlier, it's primary definition of wet was containing moisture, especially water. So water is wet by definition, but wet does not necessarily imply water. Indeed water is probably called water because it is inherently wet. Moisture in turn defines as:
liquid defines as:
So, whether you like it or not, it seems that not only water is wet, but oil is also wet. Oil just happens to be a viscous liquid.
viscous: (All definitions from Oxford: Oxford University Press: OUP.COM Home Page )

Definition of water is water =H2O.If you like that is essence of water.To be wetis characteristic of water but not essential one.

They are truth by definition.

Yes,if you breake rule of identity.But after that you are not in position to think of anything,because you breake basic rule.

Ice is also H20. Making the point that water isn't necessarily wet.

But that's not the only answer. We can approach the problem two ways. To focus on (analytic) truth by definition, or (synthetic) truth by observation. With the second, statements are never necessarily true ... since it's always possible a future observation could refute existing theory.

Of course the analytic/synthetic distinction of truth is debatable in itself (as in Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"). Which I'd probably agree with in part ... in that truth is by definition empirical. There has to be some real world observation factored in somewhere into any meaning statement. Making it the case that analytically true statements are not really true in any interesting sense, but just *assumed* to be true. "Truth by definition" is just "assumed by definition." The previous line of reasoning was analytic. Make of that what you will.

Going back to definitions, but paraphrasing a little, wet means 'containing moisture'. Moisture means 'water or other liquid diffused in a small quantity as vapour, within a solid, or condensed on a surface'. So not only water is wet, but ice is also wet - but its 'wetness' is in solid form. An unusual concept perhaps, but possible.

Water is wet - by definition of the word 'wet'. To even try to say otherwise is making argument for arguments' sake.

yaaaarrg [or however many a's and r's there are]: have you ever looked at logical constructed languages like Lojban? You might find them interesting.

Yes ... it looks pretty nice. I poked around the site a few months ago. Being the dunce I am, I thought it was a computer language at first; I looked for the compiler for about a 15 minutes totally confused.

And that makes mathematics empirical science.Or mathematics is just assumption.

I don´t think Kripke will agree with you on this one.

"Water is wet" That's like saying "Shit Happens!"

How do we approach this simple approach to a very complicated state of affairs? I mean water is really a number of gasses that decided to have sex with each other and became wet...