Water

[fast]

If I ask a scientist what water is, or (what is water?), I may get a response like, "H2O." The problem I have with that is it fails to take into account what I mean by "is." Sure, water is composed of H2O, but so is ice and a certain gaseous vapor.

They might go on to explain that water can take different forms: solid, liquid, gas. Here's my thing, when I'm looking at ice (for example), the scientist would have me believe that what I'm looking at is frozen water. On that account, there is something I agree with and disagree with.

To bring some clarity to this, let's suppose history was written a bit differently and the definition by scientists was that water is "H2O in liquid form." Then, ice would still be frozen water in one sense but not in another.

One more shot for clarity:
If water is H2O, then ice is water, but if water is H2O in liquid form, then ice is not water.

Under our current nonclemature, ice is water, but had history been written differently, I could reasonably deny that ice is water.

When I ask for a cup of ice water, a scientist might break it down and say that what I'm asking for is water in liquid form to be poured into a glass of water in frozen form.

However, if history was different, it wouldn't be broken down that way. Yes, it would still be H2O in liquid form poured into a glass of H2O in frozen form, but it would be a glass of ice water where the ice itself wouldn't be considered water.

If anyone still doesn't get it, I'm denying that ice is water. To say of ice that it's frozen water is true in the sense that it was water and was water that was then frozen, but now that it's frozen, it's changed forms and is no longer water but rather just ice.

A scientist of today would look at ice and say:
A) I'm looking at water
B) I'm looking at ice
C) I'm looking at water in solid form

A scientist of today with a different history would say:
A) I'm not looking at water (I'm looking at what once was water but no longer is)
B) I'm looking at ice (which is not water in solid form, as it's not water --but rather ice which is H2O in a solid state)
C) I'm not looking at what is but rather what was water. I'm looking at ice which is what happens when water is frozen and becomes a solid state

Does anyone comprehend how it is that I am denying that ice is water while at the same time agreeing that ice is frozen water? I'm accepting that ice is the consequence to water freezing while refusing to continue calling the H2O water (because it's no longer in liquid form).

The distinction between (H2O in any state) and (H2O specifically in its liquid state) is huge, yet here we are talking amongst ourselves as if water vapor is water and frozen water is water. The term "Frozen water" speaks to what happened to water, but only under the current nonclamenture does H2O remain water regardless of what state it's in.

I want to know what the hell happened!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You got drunk, sat in front of a computer, and typed a rambling meaningless post.

 

[phands]

PWI?

Water is water. It has states, just like all chemicals.

Move on...the crazy person might start cackling.

 

[fast]

PWI?

Water is water. It has states, just like all chemicals.

Move on...the crazy person might start cackling.

Yes, water is water. That is a trivial truism. On that, we agree.

If we could turn back the clock and accept science without the interpretations of scientists and not confuse water with its chemical composition, we could see that it's not water but rather its composition that has states.

 

[phands]

PWI?

Water is water. It has states, just like all chemicals.

Move on...the crazy person might start cackling.

Yes, water is water. That is a trivial truism. On that, we agree.

If we could turn back the clock and accept science without the interpretations of scientists and not confuse water with its chemical composition, we could see that it's not water but rather its composition that has states.

Woooooooooooo!

 

[fast]

You got drunk, sat in front of a computer, and typed a rambling meaningless post.

Mostly correct. I pecked one letter at a time from my phone. I'm thinking I should of heeded phands advice: "move on."

 

[steve_bank]

I would respond to you by saying is there something about water you do not understand? And the what do mean by what ware 'is'? Then I'd say water is what it is dude. Then you would involve some philosophical jargon and I'd say water is a definition using standard chemistry and atoms from the periodic table. Then you'd say but what is science and chemistry.....

There are movie actors, like Joe Peichi in the Lethal Weapon movies, who can never take an answer at face value no mater how simple the question and answer.

What is that? That is a rock. A what" Yea we call that a rock. Yea but what is it? Its a fucking rock are you stuoid? Okay Okay I get it, but what do you mena by a rock?

Heeeeyy Abbot.
The problem with philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

 

[fast]

Hey [phands], at least I'm not drinking and texting. Talk about something that is mighty difficult to explain to the ladies!--when the wrong one is like "excuse me?"

 

[bigfield]

Water is a chemical substance, each molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

Water has other names that are used when it exists in certain physical states: ice, steam, vapour, dew, fog, mist, snow, hail, rain, clouds etc. But the substance is still always called water.

 

[fast]

I would respond to you by saying is there something about water you do not understand? And the what do mean by what ware 'is'? Then I'd say water is what it is dude. Then you would involve some philosophical jargon and I'd say water is a definition using standard chemistry and atoms from the periodic table. Then you'd say but what is science and chemistry.....

There are movie actors, like Joe Peichi in the Lethal Weapon movies, who can never take an answer at face value no mater how simple the question and answer.

What is that? That is a rock. A what" Yea we call that a rock. Yea but what is it? Its a fucking rock are you stuoid? Okay Okay I get it, but what do you mena by a rock?

Heeeeyy Abbot.
The problem with philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

When I brought up, "is," I was thinking of the "'is' of identity," as opposed to other uses.

https://www.ontology.co/existence-predication.htm

Why I'm using water as an example (instead of what I really have on my mind) is because there's no hope at getting to the heart of the matter in conversations regarding vision.

I think a conversion of sorts is responsible for the lexical definition of "water" evolving to a scientific bias.

 

[fast]

Water is a chemical substance, each molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

Water has other names that are used when it exists in certain physical states: ice, steam, vapour, dew, fog, mist, snow, hail, rain, clouds etc. But the substance is still always called water.

Yes, I know. That's how it is.

Look at this first definition of "water" I came across:

"a colorless, transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms."

Tell me this. What's a term that best fits that definition that also doesn't include all those other states of H2O you mention.*

*except rain.

 

[Jobar]

It's a matter of semantics. If English were somewhat less flexible, it might be that we would always say ice, water, or steam; all forms of H2O, but water is solely and explicitly the chemical in its liquid form, but not in either the solid or gas form.

But English is more flexible than that, and we recognize steam and ice (several different forms of ice, in fact) as synonyms of water.

Being really fluent in only English, I can't say if this same pattern exists in other languages. Copernicus would know, I feel sure.

 

[bigfield]

"a colorless, transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms."

Here's a better one that doesn't mistakenly confine the definition of water to its liquid state:

Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance, which is the main constituent of Earth's streams, lakes, and oceans, and the fluids of most living organisms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Tell me this. What's a term that best fits that definition that also doesn't include all those other states of H2O you mention.*

*except rain.

Except rain? What's so special about rain?

 

[fast]

It's a matter of semantics. If English were somewhat less flexible, it might be that we would always say ice, water, or steam; all forms of H2O, but water is solely and explicitly the chemical in its liquid form, but not in either the solid or gas form.

But English is more flexible than that, and we recognize steam and ice (several different forms of ice, in fact) as synonyms of water.

Being really fluent in only English, I can't say if this same pattern exists in other languages. Copernicus would know, I feel sure.

Very well said. You get it.

Now, in trying to stay true to lexical usage only, we recognize the presence of stipulative usage. For instance, if I say that I'm going to 'cat' around with a 'kitty,' I'd be using the single-quoted words in a stipulative fashion. Certain fields have their own jargon, and there's many field-specific words that qualify as being stipulative. For instance, the scope of some legal terms that we might otherwise use in regular language may be broader. Same with science.

We would need an etymological journey of the use of "water" to see exactly where it became hihacked. Taking into account the propensity to confuse the whole from its constituent parts and the interpretations laid out by those in learned fields such as chemistry, I suspect we have (quite readily) adopted a much too broad scope of the substance we call water ... that has permeated into lexical usage --to the point of not being recognized as purely stipulative.

I find it disconcerting that "water" has ballooned to include everything purely H2O leaving no term to serve duty for it in liquid form only...like that of the definition I cited earlier.

Science is great. From observations, questions, hypothesis, experimentations, testings, methodology, you name it, all wonderful -- all up to the point the scientist opens his mouth and starts using words to articulate their findings. Sometimes, things are fine, and we learn where what we thought was wrong, but other times, we learn more than what we thought we did but are mistakenly told that what we thought we knew was in error.

If the referent of "water" had remained to what it is in liquid form only and we got past the messiness of confusing what something is with its constituent parts, another name may have surfaced to cover what we now call water.

 

[steve_bank]

I would respond to you by saying is there something about water you do not understand? And the what do mean by what ware 'is'? Then I'd say water is what it is dude. Then you would involve some philosophical jargon and I'd say water is a definition using standard chemistry and atoms from the periodic table. Then you'd say but what is science and chemistry.....

There are movie actors, like Joe Peichi in the Lethal Weapon movies, who can never take an answer at face value no mater how simple the question and answer.

What is that? That is a rock. A what" Yea we call that a rock. Yea but what is it? Its a fucking rock are you stuoid? Okay Okay I get it, but what do you mena by a rock?

Heeeeyy Abbot.
The problem with philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

When I brought up, "is," I was thinking of the "'is' of identity," as opposed to other uses.

https://www.ontology.co/existence-predication.htm

Why I'm using water as an example (instead of what I really have on my mind) is because there's no hope at getting to the heart of the matter in conversations regarding vision.

I think a conversion of sorts is responsible for the lexical definition of "water" evolving to a scientific bias.

English is highly contextual. This is because language in general is not designed, it works by a genial cultural immersion and understanding.

It is difficult if not impossible to answer your question because it is near impossible for you to define it precisely and unambiguously. What a rock is begins when we are kids and listen to language. We progress to sconce where rock has categories and chemical structures. Rock is the top level of hierarchical set of categories of and object.

A rock comes from magma.
A rack is hard.
A rock is brittle....

I have asked you before, what are you searching for pilgrim?



I belive Aristotle is credited with the first formal use of hierarchical categories.

Hence you have many threads asking the same essential questions and get the same essential answers.

 

[fast]

Here's a better one that doesn't mistakenly confine the definition of water to its liquid state:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Tell me this. What's a term that best fits that definition that also doesn't include all those other states of H2O you mention.*

*except rain.

Except rain? What's so special about rain?

Rain was apart of the definition I cited, and it's actually water.

I wonder how prevalent of a mistake it is. How pervasive of an occurance it is, I wonder. Is it sporadic, or did it dominate our lexicon until WE WERE TAUGHT BETTER?

What elevated it? Who is responsible for that? More specifically, did it arrive on scene only after we BEGAN TO KNOW BETTET?

I speculate that this confining 'mistake' is indicative of how "water" was used in yesteryear before WE WERE EDUCATED by science. Actually, I don't blame science. It's the alternative usage of the term that was accepted that stirs my pot.

 

[bilby]

When scientific methodologies give us more details about reality than we had before, sometimes scientists abandon the old words, and make up new ones that are able to express the greater detail. Sometimes, however (and this is particularly common with earlier scientific discoveries), the old 'generic' word is kept, but used in science in a more specific way, to refer to the commonest or most frequently discussed instance of the material or phenomenon under discussion.

Thus 'water' means BOTH 'liquid water', AND 'water in any physical state'. It is the general term for the material H₂O, and also serves as the specific term for that substance in a liquid state; If there is a risk of confusion, the speaker (or writer) must add words to clarify (eg 'liquid water').

Unlike the physicists and chemists, the geologists quickly realized that 'rock' was an inadequate word to describe a material, and came up with new words that carry that extra detail (eg slate, granite, basalt, chalk etc.). Equally, a lump of stuff might be casually called 'a rock', but when discussing the sizes of lumps of material geologists will discern between boulders, cobbles, pebbles, granules, sand and mud.

It's gneiss work if you can get it, but to a non-geologist it all sounds like needless schist.

 

[fast]

I have asked you before, what are you searching for pilgrim?

Oh my, that's a tough one right there!

I've been trying to answer, but I'm calling it a night.

 

[DBT]

What is water?
What is matter/energy?
What is anything?
What is something?
Why something rather than nothing?

 

[untermensche]

Water is not H2O.

Water is constantly in flux. Protons are moving from one molecule to another.

You have temporary ions like H3O+ and HO- and other ions all mixed around randomly moving around randomly.

Saying it is H2O is a simplification and an abstraction.