• 10 Posts
  • 89 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 2nd, 2025

help-circle














  • If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.


  • “It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? The irony is that by doing this you remove yourself from the process by delegating it to a definition, when according to history, language has mostly been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong, by default.