Water

[Valjean]

Water is a liquid hydrogen oxide.
As a gas it's water vapor, in solid form it's water ice.

 

[Jobar]

We normally think of carbon dioxide as a gas, since it can't exist at natural terrestrial temperatures and pressures in its solid or liquid forms. When we chill it to a solid, we name it 'dry ice'- but we don't even have specific common names for its gas or liquid forms.

I also am curious what your point here is, fast. Is it about our naming conventions, or about water itself?

 

[fast]

We normally think of carbon dioxide as a gas, since it can't exist at natural terrestrial temperatures and pressures in its solid or liquid forms. When we chill it to a solid, we name it 'dry ice'- but we don't even have specific common names for its gas or liquid forms.

I also am curious what your point here is, fast. Is it about our naming conventions, or about water itself?

It's about the bastardization of language in the name of science. I'm fully content on giving credit where credit is due and am completely grateful and appreciative for the insights that science brings. Sometimes, the layman is incorrect, and science can bring that fact to bare, but too often, it's not the layman that is in error.

We need to be mindful to separate the good that science brings with the articulated truths brought to us by scientists.

 

[phands]

Sometimes, the layman is incorrect, and science can bring that fact to bare, but too often, it's not the layman that is in error.

We need to be mindful to separate the good that science brings with the articulated truths brought to us by scientists.

Whut? Define "too often", with specifics and figures. And the OP stuff about water still makes zero sense.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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!

Yes, you're sort of right. Water is a liquid. That's definitely what most people mean when they talk of water. Even the sciency types here who will obviously pretend otherwise. I'd love to see the face of them if having asked for a glass of water they were given a a glass of ice. Go on, drink that, pal.

water
1. A clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid, H2O, essential for most plant and animal life and the most widely used of all solvents. Freezing point 0°C (32°F); boiling point 100°C (212°F); specific gravity (4°C) 1.0000; weight per gallon (15°C) 8.338 pounds (3.782 kilograms).

Where you're wrong is that we all do what scientists do in this respect, i.e. we may all occasionally redefined the words we use, especially when we are part of a self-appointed group of people who find it convenient to do so. Language is evolving, too, so it should be no big deal. Still, water is a liquid. Between a glass of water and a glass of ice, I prefer a glass of water.
EB

EDIT
And H2O is not necessarily water. It can be ice and other things. And most water isn't even H2O to begin with, you got some HO- and HO3+ in it, and also minerals and what not, like fish. And when I pass water, I don't think it's just H2O.

 

[fast]

Sometimes, the layman is incorrect, and science can bring that fact to bare, but too often, it's not the layman that is in error.

We need to be mindful to separate the good that science brings with the articulated truths brought to us by scientists.

Whut? Define "too often", with specifics and figures. And the OP stuff about water still makes zero sense.

Time comes to mind. Try measuring it without motion. While your calculations register nothing, time will nevertheless persist. It's been co-opted by science, kind of like how compatibilists altered our age old understanding of free will. Vision, something has taught us a great deal--but be very cautious of what they actually say.

Water is a liquid. Water transformed to a solid state is not water at all and thus cannot itself be water, yet there you go, regarding it as a molecule. I suppose if that's what you were taught, it makes sense you'd adhere to that ALTERED convention.

 

[phands]

Water is a liquid. Water transformed to a solid state is not water at all and thus cannot itself be water, yet there you go, regarding it as a molecule. I suppose if that's what you were taught, it makes sense you'd adhere to that ALTERED convention.

Not Even Wrong^TM

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sometimes, the layman is incorrect, and science can bring that fact to bare, but too often, it's not the layman that is in error.

We need to be mindful to separate the good that science brings with the articulated truths brought to us by scientists.

Whut? Define "too often", with specifics and figures. And the OP stuff about water still makes zero sense.

Time comes to mind. Try measuring it without motion. While your calculations register nothing, time will nevertheless persist. It's been co-opted by science, kind of like how compatibilists altered our age old understanding of free will. Vision, something has taught us a great deal--but be very cautious of what they actually say.

Water is a liquid. Water transformed to a solid state is not water at all and thus cannot itself be water, yet there you go, regarding it as a molecule. I suppose if that's what you were taught, it makes sense you'd adhere to that ALTERED convention.

Try to water down your position here. You're walking on thin ice.

Prove you're never doing what you reproach scientists?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We need to be mindful to separate the good that science brings with the articulated truths brought to us by scientists.

I can't make sense of that. You're muddying the water.

And you're definitely not drinking H2O here.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Water is H2O. There is liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor.

There is gaseous nitrogen and there is liquid nitrogen.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some delusional people may believe water is H2O or that H2O is necessarily water. Not my cup of tea but I can live with that.
EB

 

[fast]

Water is H2O. There is liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor.

There is gaseous nitrogen and there is liquid nitrogen.

Saying of something that it's frozen water suggests (but does not imply) that what is frozen is water, but that's why it's so misleading. What is before us isn't but rather was water, and what happened to the water was that it was frozen. Once it transformed to a solid, it is no longer water but ice--not water in a solid state. Water ceases being water when it's state changes. Water can only be water while a liquid. You can communicate to me that something is frozen water, but I'm not going to make the mistake in thinking that the ice is water that's just in a different state. What's in a different state is the molecule which should not be labeled as water, for the term "water" is exclusive to H2O in liquid form only. Liquid is the only state water can be in. If the state before us changes, it's the state of the molecule, not water.

I'm fully aware that I'm using an old school convention that is divergent from new school learnings, but how there was even a shift of conventions to begin with is what drives my passion. Science drives the new convention, but science has not informed us via scientific findings. Science has shown that the molecule H2O is different in its various states, but the moment it commendeered the term "water" and expanded it to include states not liquid is the point of contention -- and representative of various scientific adaptations of words in our language.

 

[steve_bank]

Water is H2O. There is liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor.

There is gaseous nitrogen and there is liquid nitrogen.

Saying of something that it's frozen water suggests (but does not imply) that what is frozen is water, but that's why it's so misleading. What is before us isn't but rather was water, and what happened to the water was that it was frozen. Once it transformed to a solid, it is no longer water but ice--not water in a solid state. Water ceases being water when it's state changes. Water can only be water while a liquid. You can communicate to me that something is frozen water, but I'm not going to make the mistake in thinking that the ice is water that's just in a different state. What's in a different state is the molecule which should not be labeled as water, for the term "water" is exclusive to H2O in liquid form only. Liquid is the only state water can be in. If the state before us changes, it's the state of the molecule, not water.

I'm fully aware that I'm using an old school convention that is divergent from new school learnings, but how there was even a shift of conventions to begin with is what drives my passion. Science drives the new convention, but science has not informed us via scientific findings. Science has shown that the molecule H2O is different in its various states, but the moment it commendeered the term "water" and expanded it to include states not liquid is the point of contention -- and representative of various scientific adaptations of words in our language.

What I am wondering is how you are able to communicat with e and navigate the real world.

 

[phands]

the term "water" is exclusive to H2O in liquid form only. Liquid is the only state water can be in. If the state before us changes, it's the state of the molecule, not water.

That is one of the most breathtakingly stupidly wrong things I've seen written down outside of a bible. Your attempts to restrict the use of certain words is childish, ill-informed and incredibly useless.

[FONT=&quot]Water is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen (chemical formula: H₂O) with highly distinctive physical and chemical properties: it is able to dissolve many other substances; its solid form (ice) is less dense than the liquid form; its boiling point, viscosity, and surface tension are unusually high for its molecular weight, and it is partially dissociated into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions.[/FONT]

Because water is so omnipresent on this planet, just as with other things, we have different words to shorthand the common states of the substance.
Are you also saying snow isn't water? Or cloud?

But I don't expect you to listen to, or absorb any of this. This thread belongs in elsewhere, not in a philosophical discussion forum....the OP is gibberish.

 

[fast]

Water is H2O. There is liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor.

There is gaseous nitrogen and there is liquid nitrogen.

Saying of something that it's frozen water suggests (but does not imply) that what is frozen is water, but that's why it's so misleading. What is before us isn't but rather was water, and what happened to the water was that it was frozen. Once it transformed to a solid, it is no longer water but ice--not water in a solid state. Water ceases being water when it's state changes. Water can only be water while a liquid. You can communicate to me that something is frozen water, but I'm not going to make the mistake in thinking that the ice is water that's just in a different state. What's in a different state is the molecule which should not be labeled as water, for the term "water" is exclusive to H2O in liquid form only. Liquid is the only state water can be in. If the state before us changes, it's the state of the molecule, not water.

I'm fully aware that I'm using an old school convention that is divergent from new school learnings, but how there was even a shift of conventions to begin with is what drives my passion. Science drives the new convention, but science has not informed us via scientific findings. Science has shown that the molecule H2O is different in its various states, but the moment it commendeered the term "water" and expanded it to include states not liquid is the point of contention -- and representative of various scientific adaptations of words in our language.

What I am wondering is how you are able to communicat with e and navigate the real world.

Well, all in all, I usually take a go-with-the-flow approach and speak with the convention in current use, but like so many subject issues that when taken to task devolve into language usage, I try to maintain an aweness of what's being communicated from different perspectives.

A common retort is about what science has demonstrated, but seldom do I see an acknowledgement distinguishing between what science has brought versus what scientists have conveyed.

 

[fast]

the term "water" is exclusive to H2O in liquid form only. Liquid is the only state water can be in. If the state before us changes, it's the state of the molecule, not water.

That is one of the most breathtakingly stupidly wrong things I've seen written down outside of a bible. Your attempts to restrict the use of certain words is childish, ill-informed and incredibly useless.

[FONT="]Water is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen (chemical formula: H₂O) with highly distinctive physical and chemical properties: it is able to dissolve many other substances; its solid form (ice) is less dense than the liquid form; its boiling point, viscosity, and surface tension are unusually high for its molecular weight, and it is partially dissociated into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions.[/FONT]

Because water is so omnipresent on this planet, just as with other things, we have different words to shorthand the common states of the substance.
Are you also saying snow isn't water? Or cloud?

But I don't expect you to listen to, or absorb any of this. This thread belongs in elsewhere, not in a philosophical discussion forum....the OP is gibberish.

What I'm doing is expounding upon the implications of a restricted usage, yes, but the point of honing in the point of divergence is so that it can be recognized as being an underlying component into why so many discussions become hopelessly lost.

Free will is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Time is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Atheist is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Seeing is a example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

 

[Jobar]

Though you may have a point in there somewhere, fast, you should realize that many ancient civilizations realized that ice, water, and steam were all forms of one substance- long before science as a way of examining the natural world was systematized. So your example is so poor that I still find your point incomprehensible.

 

[Jobar]

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

But that isn't the fault of science; it's a consequence of the complexity of the universe we live in.

And though I'd agree that it's damned easy for people to talk past one another, it isn't inevitable; the very flexibility of language allows us to formulate our ideas in many different patterns of words, and hopefully to focus and refine our meanings until we understand each other. We can successively approximate our ideas back and forth to each other, until we are in very close agreement that we mutually understand what we're talking about.

 

[bilby]

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

But that isn't the fault of science; it's a consequence of the complexity of the universe we live in.

And though I'd agree that it's damned easy for people to talk past one another, it isn't inevitable; the very flexibility of language allows us to formulate our ideas in many different patterns of words, and hopefully to focus and refine our meanings until we understand each other. We can successively approximate our ideas back and forth to each other, until we are in very close agreement that we mutually understand what we're talking about.

Indeed; And we are not limited to language, either. I could show you what I am talking about, or draw you a picture, if you don't understand me.

 

[untermensche]

That is one of the most breathtakingly stupidly wrong things I've seen written down outside of a bible. Your attempts to restrict the use of certain words is childish, ill-informed and incredibly useless.



Because water is so omnipresent on this planet, just as with other things, we have different words to shorthand the common states of the substance.
Are you also saying snow isn't water? Or cloud?

But I don't expect you to listen to, or absorb any of this. This thread belongs in elsewhere, not in a philosophical discussion forum....the OP is gibberish.

What I'm doing is expounding upon the implications of a restricted usage, yes, but the point of honing in the point of divergence is so that it can be recognized as being an underlying component into why so many discussions become hopelessly lost.

Free will is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Time is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Atheist is an example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

Seeing is a example. What it means now vs what it meant before evolving have different implications.

The ambiguity is staggering vast, and when we get down to brass tacks, it's inevitable for people to talk past one another.

The ability to see evolved. None of the rest did.

Concepts changing over time as minds decide to change them based on new evidence and ideas is not evolution.

It is change but not evolution.

Evolution does not have a mind deciding this and that.