Why is Water Wet?

[ImmortalFlame]

The question is simple: why does water wet? Just admit that science can't answer the question.

Why would I "admit" something that I don't know?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why would I "admit" something that I don't know?

Well can it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well can it?

I refer you to my post in the "Can science prove..." thread:

Possibly?

That's kind of like asking "could humanity ever make a piece of string long enough to circle the Universe"? Probably not with today's technology, but how are we to say what is possible with greater technology, or greater string, or a better understanding of the Universe?

Quantum physics already raises some pretty astonishing questions about what the nature of reality actually is, and whether it is an objective truth or merely the result of our perceptions acting upon a wave of countless probabilities. There's no reason to assume it couldn't solve these and other mysteries at some point in the future.

And yes, this does include "why do certain forms of matter interact the way they do with other things" and "why does matter have mass" and even perhaps "why does matter exist at all". These are fundamentally scientific questions about the nature of reality, and whether or not science will (or is even capable) of addressing these questions is not just a simple yes or no. Science is an ongoing and increasingly complex search for the fundamental truths are the heart of existence, so it seems silly to suggest that science simply "cannot" answer a question just because it cannot do it right away.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I refer you to my post in the "Can science prove..." thread:

"Possibly?" is not answer.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't ask how. I asked why.

It is the why.

You're putting the cart before the horse and wonder why the cart moves.

Why it is or how it is are sometimes synonymous. The reason why it is that way is because how it got there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Possibly?" is not answer.

Yes, it is. Also, try reading a little further to see my actual response.

 

[Son, Moon & Star]

Sensory experience then the labeling of what it is like through word creation.

 

[icehorse]

"Why is water wet?"

The answer might depend on whether you ask an atheist scientist, a Biblical scientist, or a Quranic scientist.

 

[Nymphs]

Why is salt, salty?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why is salt, salty?

Thanks for giving me my next question.

This is for you:

[youtube]Y68mGbvZZZg[/youtube]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for giving me my next question.

This is for you:

[youtube]Y68mGbvZZZg[/youtube]

Nietzsche's assumptions about the limitations of science are meaningless, just as his assumption of any form of ultimate truth is meaningless. He cannot possibly assess the potential of what science (or any other methodology) can achieve, and is therefore simply blankly asserting that science cannot find the answers to the questions he is asking without proper consideration for the fact that he has no understanding or prior knowledge of how far science is capable of going in understanding the Universe.

It's like the string problem I proposed earlier. It's reasonable to assume we can't currently make a piece of string that wraps around the Universe, but it is not reasonable to assume that we could never do it no matter what advances in technology, string or our understanding of the Universe may bring us. Instead, he merely asserts that science "can't" do these things, and therefore suggests it is somehow a "limitation" of science. I've never found this particular claim to be very convincing, because it can only be made from a position of ignorance. Nietzsche simply couldn't possibly have the ability to tell us what the ultimate potential of an objective view of the Universe can tell us, and his position ultimately boils down to "be critical of science and don't just accept it at face value", which is something so blatantly obvious it barely needs stating.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why is salt, salty?

(To continue)

And why are words wordy?

And text readable?

Why is food edible, and TV shows watchable?

Why is coffee drinkable and air airy?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Nietzsche's assumptions about the limitations of science are meaningless, just as his assumption of any form of ultimate truth is meaningless. He cannot possibly assess the potential of what science (or any other methodology) can achieve, and is therefore simply blankly asserting that science cannot find the answers to the questions he is asking without proper consideration for the fact that he has no understanding or prior knowledge of how far science is capable of going in understanding the Universe.

It's like the string problem I proposed earlier. It's reasonable to assume we can't currently make a piece of string that wraps around the Universe, but it is not reasonable to assume that we could never do it no matter what advances in technology, string or our understanding of the Universe may bring us. Instead, he merely asserts that science "can't" do these things, and therefore suggests it is somehow a "limitation" of science. I've never found this particular claim to be very convincing, because it can only be made from a position of ignorance. Nietzsche simply couldn't possibly have the ability to tell us what the ultimate potential of an objective view of the Universe can tell us, and his position ultimately boils down to "be critical of science and don't just accept it at face value", which is something so blatantly obvious it barely needs stating.

So can science tell us what the meaning of life is?

 

[Gordian Knot]

So can science tell us what the meaning of life is?

I believe you would have to refer to Monty Python for that answer.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe you would have to refer to Monty Python for that answer.

Always look on the bright side of life...

 

[dust1n]

So science cannot answer the question why does water wet?

It's sort of a meaningless question when it has no context. Science can't answer any questions in a very strict sense, it doesn't talk.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I figure the best Practical way to find out why water is wet is to just dry it out.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Nietzsche's assumptions about the limitations of science are meaningless, just as his assumption of any form of ultimate truth is meaningless. He cannot possibly assess the potential of what science (or any other methodology) can achieve, and is therefore simply blankly asserting that science cannot find the answers to the questions he is asking without proper consideration for the fact that he has no understanding or prior knowledge of how far science is capable of going in understanding the Universe.

It's like the string problem I proposed earlier. It's reasonable to assume we can't currently make a piece of string that wraps around the Universe, but it is not reasonable to assume that we could never do it no matter what advances in technology, string or our understanding of the Universe may bring us. Instead, he merely asserts that science "can't" do these things, and therefore suggests it is somehow a "limitation" of science. I've never found this particular claim to be very convincing, because it can only be made from a position of ignorance. Nietzsche simply couldn't possibly have the ability to tell us what the ultimate potential of an objective view of the Universe can tell us, and his position ultimately boils down to "be critical of science and don't just accept it at face value", which is something so blatantly obvious it barely needs stating.

Have you ever read Nietzsche? He is right, science is a tool to discover the material universe and nothing more. It cannot teach us values, and it cannot teach us what life means. Only the individual can do that not religion nor science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So can science tell us what the meaning of life is?

Did you even read what I just wrote?

Have you ever read Nietzsche? He is right, science is a tool to discover the material universe and nothing more. It cannot teach us values, and it cannot teach us what life means.

Maybe to the former (although it could be suggested that science can advance human morals, but that's a whole other discussion), but I see no reason why we should assume that science cannot discover the meaning behind life.

Only the individual can do that not religion nor science.

But both are potential methods for learning it. Both are proposed as methodologies used to try and discern the truth about reality. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that science (nor religion, nor any other methodology) therefore cannot potentially lead us to an answer to such questions as why the Universe exists. You don't seem to be refuting my arguments, just re-stating Nietzsche's argument which, as I explained, is basically a form of argument from ignorance. He's asserting something that there is no good reason to assert, and it is meaningless to do so.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Did you even read what I just wrote?

Have you ever read any Nietzsche?