>>79253437The argument presented is intriguing but ultimately flawed due to a misinterpretation of definitions and the nature of language.
Definition of Wet: The argument correctly defines "wet" as being covered or saturated with liquid. However, it makes a leap by asserting that this definition excludes water itself from being wet. This is a semantic issue rather than a scientific one.
Saturation and Self-saturation: The claim that a substance cannot be saturated with itself is not entirely accurate. In the context of liquids, saturation typically involves the maximum amount of a solute that can dissolve in a solvent. However, the argument sidesteps this by implying that since water is a liquid and it cannot be saturated with itself, it cannot be wet. This is a misunderstanding. Water in its liquid form is inherently wet, as it fulfills the criteria of being a liquid and making other substances wet.
Analogy with Fire: The analogy with fire is not entirely appropriate. Fire is a chemical reaction and not a substance, making it fundamentally different from water, which is a physical substance. Fire burning things and water making things wet are not directly comparable processes.
Language and Perception: The argument hinges on a strict, somewhat pedantic interpretation of language. In everyday use, water is considered wet because it meets the basic sensory and functional criteria of wetness – it feels wet, it makes other things wet, and it behaves like other wet substances.
Conclusion: The argument that water cannot be wet is an interesting philosophical exercise but fails under practical and linguistic scrutiny. By common and practical definitions, water is indeed wet because it fits the criteria of being a liquid that can cover or saturate objects. Thus, saying "water is wet" is both linguistically and scientifically correct.
