Why is Water Wet?

[CynthiaCypher]

I am not sure that particle physics is the right tool.

I would probably check enhanced brain activity in the brain subsystems responsible for emotional feelings or other regions responsible for higher level cognition.

Of course, the sample under analysis should not include students forced to read it. That might pollute the results with spurious activations of the brain circuitry responsible for boredom

Ciao

- viole

And how would that be a critical analysis of Titus Andronicus?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think they're saying science has answered it, just that there is no reason to assume that it couldn't at some point; or that such questions are intrinsically unavailable to a scientific answer.

So that tell one that some people have blind faith in science. They cannot give answer from science but their faith in science suggests them that one day science will answer it.

Regards

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So that tell one that some people have blind faith in science. They cannot give answer from science but their faith in science suggests them that one day science will answer it.

Regards

Sounds like religious belief to me.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sounds like religious belief to me.

It seems it is faith creed # 1 of Atheism:

To have blind faith in Science; though it never claims it.

Regards

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So that tell one that some people have blind faith in science. They cannot give answer from science but their faith in science suggests them that one day science will answer it.

Regards

There's a difference between "blind faith" and "not jumping to conclusion". I never said that we believe science will definitely some day figure it out, just that it's baseless to assume that it definitely will never be able to. The exact same applies to just about any methodology for anything.

It would help if, in future, you make an attempt to understand an argument (or, at the very least, read it) before responding.

 

[Slapstick]

Oh please, don't tell me you guys never asked that question.

So my science otaku frienemies, I am curious. So tell me, why is water wet?

I replied to this very question and it got trolled to death so I will respond again to it here.

Water isn't wet! It is sticky in nature and can take on several different forms. It can be a liquid, solid, or a gas. It can also stick to you after you swim, bath, or get it on you. That is why a cloth is required to it off.

 

[viole]

Sounds like religious belief to me.

I think it is sensible to assume that perceptions, feelings and sentiments can be studied scientifically. If not, that would be an awful waste of neurons.

I hope you guys are not suggesting that "faith" in science is similar to faith in God(s) and that holding one is like holding the other. After all, "faith" in science gives some feedback that prove that it is rational to hold it.

Consider what I am doing:

1) i am typing things on a touch sensitive screen
2) what I type is stored on tiny quantum mechanical devices that keep their state
3) millions and millions of these devices can be packed on a square millimeter
4) a certain amount of electrons dance to perturbe the space arond me
5) this dance creates a flow of radiation that irradiates in this room
6) this perturbation causes anothes set of electrons to dance and read the information I am writing
7) this is turned into light in such a way that it can flow imprisoned in tiny fibers of glass to a remote location
8) many of these photons can carry information at the same time
9) this information might then be transmitted into space to be relayed by a geostationary satellite allowing it to cross the ocean
A) after several hops, everybody in the world can read that on their high resolution screens in no time

As concerns faith in god(s), then well, I mean, apart from giving us a cozy feeling of being immortal, spiritual (whatever that means) and of being the reason the universe exists, I don't really see what it can be used for.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Slapstick]

I think it is sensible to assume that perceptions, feelings and sentiments can be studied scientifically. If not, that would be an awful waste of neurons.

I hope you guys are not suggesting that "faith" in science is similar to faith in God(s) and that holding one is like holding the other. After all, "faith" in science gives some feedback that prove that it is rational to hold it.

Consider what I am doing:

1) i am typing things on a touch sensitive screen
2) what I type is stored on tiny quantum mechanical devices that keep their state
3) millions and millions of these devices can be packed on a square millimeter
4) a certain amount of electrons dance to perturbe the space arond me
5) this dance creates a flow of radiation that irradiates in this room
6) this perturbation causes anothes set of electrons to dance and read the information I am writing
7) this is turned into light in such a way that it can flow imprisoned in tiny fibers of glass to a remote location
8) many of these photons can carry information at the same time
9) this information might then be transmitted into space to be relayed by a geostationary satellite allowing it to cross the ocean
A) after several hops, everybody in the world can read that on their high resolution screens in no time

As concerns faith in god(s), then well, I mean, apart from giving us a cozy feeling of being immortal, spiritual (whatever that means) and of being the reason the universe exists, I don't really see what it can be used for.

Ciao

- viole

I agree, in the sense that faith in science isn’t the same as having faith in god. However, Science doesn’t require faith like religion does, nor does a belief in God. A belief for example, can be a justifiable true belief – which is knowledge or knowing, and leads to understanding.

Below is a great video to watch, that I was watching earlier, and is outdated by modern standards in the world of IT, but very much relates to the human brain and knowledge – Also Jeff Hawkins is funny.

[youtube]G6CVj5IQkzk[/youtube]

However, for the sake of argument. It seems to imply that those who have faith or lack it are in equal states, a state of uncertainty, where nothing is known, but everyone thinks they know it all.

 

[Timbo]

I agree, in the sense that faith in science isn’t the same as having faith in god. However, Science doesn’t require faith like religion does, nor does a belief in God. A belief for example, can be a justifiable true belief – which is knowledge or knowing, and leads to understanding.

Below is a great video to watch, that I was watching earlier, and is outdated by modern standards in the world of IT, but very much relates to the human brain and knowledge – Also Jeff Hawkins is funny.

[youtube]G6CVj5IQkzk[/youtube]

However, for the sake of argument. It seems to imply that those who have faith or lack it are in equal states, a state of uncertainty, where nothing is known, but everyone thinks they know it all.

Questioning faith in science is in itself psychotic. It's essentially like questioning whether or not you believe there is something to know in the first place. This discussion doesn't make any sense at all, predicated on our conciousness. It's just a wrongturn tbh.

 

[nazz]

Oh please, don't tell me you guys never asked that question.

So my science otaku frienemies, I am curious. So tell me, why is water wet?

"Wet" is a quale

 

[Curious George]

Science answers plenty of questions, however your apparent use of "why" is asking "for what purpose does water wet?" purpose is a question which can be suggested and analyzed but not discerned definitively. In many instances science assumes there is no purpose, rather that properties such as water's wetness are simply a consequence of fundamental forces. Thus, science can answer the question why is water wet when the question is intended to mean for what cause is water wet. But purpose is not always there. This is why scientific thought revolutionized thought in general. Instead of assuming intention science has demonstrated why intention and will are oft unnecessary parts of the equation.

 

[edwinic]

So tell me, why is water wet?

Because its not dry.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There was a video about water being sticky in this thread with astronauts but can't find it...

Anyway, that begs to question, is all liquid sticky since it sticks like water? And why? Is it possible for a non-sticky liquid?

 

[Curious George]

There was a video about water being sticky in this thread with astronauts but can't find it...

Anyway, that begs to question, is all liquid sticky since it sticks like water? And why? Is it possible for a non-sticky liquid?

If stickyness refers to viscosity, then liquids do not have to be sticky. The cause of waters viscosity is hydrogen bonding.

 

[The Adept]

... So tell me, why is water wet?

Water; it is not like soil of the earth, it is also unlike fire.
It is unlike the air and the wind.

It maketh noise 'wet' and feel'eth that which it feels of; being unlike unto the soil of the earth or fire or air and the wind.

 

[Mycroft]

Water is not wet. By the definition of "wet", water is a factor in becoming wet, but is not wet itself, because when you are wet, you are "covered or soaked with a liquid such as water", and water is water itself, therefore it is not wet.

 

[The Adept]

Water is not wet. By the definition of "wet", water is a factor in becoming wet, but is not wet itself, because when you are wet, you are "covered or soaked with a liquid such as water", and water is water itself, therefore it is not wet.

I would say water is wet because it is a liquid.
Dagon gets very wet.

 

[Mycroft]

I would say water is wet because it is a liquid.
Dagon gets very wet.

Let me throw another word at you: 'damp'.

When your clothes come into contact with liquid to a small degree (such as rain) they become 'damp'. Is water then damp? And if so is it water wet or damp?

Neither, is the answer. 'Wet' like 'Damp' are labels which we assigned to the result of coming into contact with a liquid (by degrees).

 

[The Adept]

Let me throw another word at you: 'damp'.

When your clothes come into contact with liquid to a small degree (such as rain) they become 'damp'. Is water then damp? And if so is it water wet or damp?

Neither, is the answer. 'Wet' like 'Damp' are labels which we assigned to the result of coming into contact with a liquid (by degrees).

That which is in it's liquid state is wet and maketh wet.
yay even it maketh that which was damp with wetness...wetter still.

Sand upon the clothes makes sandy but not wet for sand is not wet.
If sand was wet then it would make clothes sandy and wet.

 

[Maldini]

Wet as in liquid? it's basic inter-molecular force chemistry.

Wet as soaked in water? then wet means water.