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. 😉
“Water cohabitating with a substance” is a perfect definition of hydrophilicity, adding in some science and Latin.
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. 😁
Also: "Appealing to the dictionary should be its own kind of fallacy." ABSOLUTELY.
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.