Also, what we call water is a group of water (H20) molecules. Those molecules touch one another.
So even if wetness is a transitive property transfered by water to another thing (e.g. water makes a cloth wet by proximity), water molecules touching each other makes the body of water water wet - even if a singular water molecule isn't.
When talking about arguments, my eighth graders have this topic as an option along with other fun ones like whether boneless wings are chicken nuggets and so forth. Having disposable yet recyclable topics year to year helps.
Wow... your students are very lucky. How sad I did not have any teacher like you in middle or high school. It's left me very slow on my feet so to speak. I can't argue with anyone without thinking about it, taking notes, writing about it, then going to town. It reminds me of one of my daughter's boyfriends who had a PhD but believed the earth was flat. That was an interesting time!
I love this. So crazy to think that 9 years ago I was Freshman/Sophomore discussing this same question to people. I felt deep within my soul that the proposition 'Water is wet' had to be true, but I could not argue like you did here Jacob. Great job, and thank you for bring back so childhood memories
I hoped they learned from your teaching, because I sure did. Your post has moved me to write specifically on logic and how to use it. Do you mind if I site this work?
Wow! Thank you for the treasure trove. Let my job know I'll be gone for the next couple hours spelunking in the caverns of the most substantial substance "non-substance" 😆
Fun piece. And it made me happy to see you push back against that kind of sophistry like that.
But I also felt a bit of a sting of shame, as in a a bit of a coincidence, I just today published a post that was less than entirely respectful of both Aristotle and those pin-dancing angels. 😉
If you were able to suddenly make something 100% dry, in that same instant it would crumble into dust.
A better question to argue is the issue of whether or not faith can exist without doubt. Or whether doubt can exist without faith. Spoiler alert, they are not mutually exclusive. They are part of each other.
Most of your logic is relatively sound. Here are some of my concerns with it.
In this dictionary definition that you offered,
“WET
adjective (wetter, wettest)
1 covered or saturated with water….”
it can be seen that if something is wet it can be saturated with water. Clearly it is true that water is saturated with itself. Therefore, by this definition, water is wet.
The following is another definition to which I had objections :
“Like light and darkness, on and off, true and false, it may be said that there is no middle between wet and dry.”
It is immediately obvious that this is completely false if you’ve lived life for more than a minute.
Between light and darkness, there is dimness or twilight. And, depending on the application, a similar concept can be true for “on”.
It would be much more difficult to make such a case for “off.”
It can also be difficult to make the case for something being only true or only false. You would have to make your definitions very exact. Just ask Satan.
And then we come to the middle ground between wet and dry. Obviously I’m referring to dampness. Neither truly wet nor truly dry.
Also, in case you’re not familiar with the concept, water can be made more wet. This is the function of soap.
Another bit of trivia is that water is one of the best lubricators there is. The reason it is not generally used for this purpose is because it easily evaporates and causes rust and corrosion.
I would argue that you are talking about degrees of light and degrees of wetness (or saturation). But there is no middle ground between wet and dry. Damp is still wet just as soaked is wet. Dimness still admits light is present just to a reduced degree, but there either is or isn’t any light.
It’s true that preciseness in our wording is important for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, but it is certain that nothing is both and truth and false at the same time or in the same way. You could disagree, but that would just further my point.
“Water cohabitating with a substance” is a perfect definition of hydrophilicity, adding in some science and Latin.
Also: "Appealing to the dictionary should be its own kind of fallacy." ABSOLUTELY.
Also, what we call water is a group of water (H20) molecules. Those molecules touch one another.
So even if wetness is a transitive property transfered by water to another thing (e.g. water makes a cloth wet by proximity), water molecules touching each other makes the body of water water wet - even if a singular water molecule isn't.
When talking about arguments, my eighth graders have this topic as an option along with other fun ones like whether boneless wings are chicken nuggets and so forth. Having disposable yet recyclable topics year to year helps.
Wow... your students are very lucky. How sad I did not have any teacher like you in middle or high school. It's left me very slow on my feet so to speak. I can't argue with anyone without thinking about it, taking notes, writing about it, then going to town. It reminds me of one of my daughter's boyfriends who had a PhD but believed the earth was flat. That was an interesting time!
Wow, a real flat earth proponent! I would have had to start arguing that the earth is actually cubed, rather than a flat disc, just for fun.
I love this. So crazy to think that 9 years ago I was Freshman/Sophomore discussing this same question to people. I felt deep within my soul that the proposition 'Water is wet' had to be true, but I could not argue like you did here Jacob. Great job, and thank you for bring back so childhood memories
Haha, I wrote and presented this to my logic students last year because several of them were insisting that water is not wet. 😂
I hoped they learned from your teaching, because I sure did. Your post has moved me to write specifically on logic and how to use it. Do you mind if I site this work?
Of course you can. Other helpful bits: https://stgb.substack.com/p/logic-resources
Wow! Thank you for the treasure trove. Let my job know I'll be gone for the next couple hours spelunking in the caverns of the most substantial substance "non-substance" 😆
Fun piece. And it made me happy to see you push back against that kind of sophistry like that.
But I also felt a bit of a sting of shame, as in a a bit of a coincidence, I just today published a post that was less than entirely respectful of both Aristotle and those pin-dancing angels. 😉
Haha! There’s always time to print a retraction. 😁
Damn skippy.
Similar arguments can be had about these subjects: "Is a hotdog a sandwich?" and "What constitutes a salad?"
Definition is everything.
and yet the definitions are so loosely used colloquially that both terms sandwich and salad cease to mean anything.
Water is not wet...
Brought to you by the same folks who are still passionately debating whether or not Schrodinger's cat made it out alive. Very enjoyable.
He definitely did. Or didn’t.
I'm thankful someone has finally thrown cold water on this inexcusably silly idea.
This is an exercise you have practiced since you began to talk. Well done Jacob.
If you were able to suddenly make something 100% dry, in that same instant it would crumble into dust.
A better question to argue is the issue of whether or not faith can exist without doubt. Or whether doubt can exist without faith. Spoiler alert, they are not mutually exclusive. They are part of each other.
Most of your logic is relatively sound. Here are some of my concerns with it.
In this dictionary definition that you offered,
“WET
adjective (wetter, wettest)
1 covered or saturated with water….”
it can be seen that if something is wet it can be saturated with water. Clearly it is true that water is saturated with itself. Therefore, by this definition, water is wet.
The following is another definition to which I had objections :
“Like light and darkness, on and off, true and false, it may be said that there is no middle between wet and dry.”
It is immediately obvious that this is completely false if you’ve lived life for more than a minute.
Between light and darkness, there is dimness or twilight. And, depending on the application, a similar concept can be true for “on”.
It would be much more difficult to make such a case for “off.”
It can also be difficult to make the case for something being only true or only false. You would have to make your definitions very exact. Just ask Satan.
And then we come to the middle ground between wet and dry. Obviously I’m referring to dampness. Neither truly wet nor truly dry.
Also, in case you’re not familiar with the concept, water can be made more wet. This is the function of soap.
Another bit of trivia is that water is one of the best lubricators there is. The reason it is not generally used for this purpose is because it easily evaporates and causes rust and corrosion.
I would argue that you are talking about degrees of light and degrees of wetness (or saturation). But there is no middle ground between wet and dry. Damp is still wet just as soaked is wet. Dimness still admits light is present just to a reduced degree, but there either is or isn’t any light.
It’s true that preciseness in our wording is important for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, but it is certain that nothing is both and truth and false at the same time or in the same way. You could disagree, but that would just further my point.