Is a fish "wet" if it is completely submerged in water?

Comments

• 3 Likes

  OlamHafuch Alum Member

  September 2017 2326 karma

  First define wet, and then we can discuss whether a fish is wet.
• LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  September 2017 edited September 2017 13286 karma

  @uhinberg said:
  First define wet, and then we can discuss whether a fish is wet.

  From Merriam-Webster:

  Definition of wet

  wetter; wettest
  1 a :consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
  b of natural gas :containing appreciable quantities of readily condensable hydrocarbons.

  I think the fish is, by definition, wet. A fish is completely covered in water when it is underwater.
• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  September 2017 2326 karma

  So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.
• LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  September 2017 13286 karma

  @uhinberg said:
  So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.

  That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.

  Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...

  Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...
• 2 Likes

  OlamHafuch Alum Member

  September 2017 2326 karma

  I agree. Just trying to understand the "controversy."
• 2 Likes

  Rigid Designator Alum Member

  September 2017 1091 karma

  Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?
• 1 Like

  Rigid Designator Alum Member

  September 2017 1091 karma

  @LSATcantwin said:

  @uhinberg said:
  So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.

  That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.

  Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...

  Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...

  Jokes aside, a similarly absurd argument would be to say that a glass is never really "full" with water, since the water merely sits on the glass's surface and none penetrates through to the glass itself.
• 3 Likes

  OlamHafuch Alum Member

  September 2017 2326 karma

  @LSATcantwin said:

  @uhinberg said:
  So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.

  That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.

  Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...

  Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...

  LSATcantwin's argument proceeds by

  (A) attacking the motives of the other side
  (B) showing that the argument confuses cause for correlation
  (C) redefining a key word
  (D) showing that the argument would lead to an absurd conclusion
  (E) proving that the fish cannot be wet even though they are submerged in water
• 1 Like

  LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  September 2017 13286 karma

  @uhinberg

  Haha while I was typing it out I thought "this would make a good LSAT question" glad I'm not the only one!
• 1 Like

  BillGreenpoint Alum Member

  September 2017 edited September 2017 318 karma

  I propose that "wet" is a relational state describing something in relation to the state of being "dry." We typically don't consider ourselves wet while swimming. We do so once we leave the pool, etc. and we are trying to reach equilibrium with the dry state of our surroundings. Thus, I argue that a fish is wet immediately after emerging from water, but is not wet while it is submerged in water.
  .#TeamFishy
• 1 Like

  Isat2017 Member

  September 2017 edited September 2017 14 karma

  Depends on contextual definition of "wet". From whose perspective is "wet" being defined--the fish or the fisherman?? LOL! A fish in its natural habitat--water--may not understand the concept of "wet" from the fisherman's view. Until that fish experience any other state--such as dry--it will never see itself, or appreciate being wet. Which it may never, since being dry means it's dead!! LOL!!
• Rigid Designator Alum Member

  September 2017 edited September 2017 1091 karma

  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/
• StrangerThanFiction175 Free Trial Member

  September 2017 99 karma

  @"Rigid Designator" said:
  Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?

  False, have you seen the movie Sharknado?

  Also, love the name. Is that meant to be a Kripke reference?
• Rigid Designator Alum Member

  September 2017 1091 karma

  @zmeeker91 said:

  @"Rigid Designator" said:
  Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?

  False, have you seen the movie Sharknado?

  Also, love the name. Is that meant to be a Kripke reference?

  It is! He's my intellectual hero.