How to eat corn on the cob, and similar points of disagreement

[Peelee]

I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet

Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.

[veti]

Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.

Speaking for myself, it's because the question doesn't come up very often.

Here's a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?

[Tvtyrant]

Here's a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?

Are you saying you do them in a row?

I floss after eating dinner, brush after breakfast and before bed. You [joking] animal. [/joke]

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Speaking for myself, it's because the question doesn't come up very often.

Count your blessings. I've had to dispose a rag soaked in mercury from a broken (old style) thermometer. Of course, at the time the adjective that came to mind wasn't so much "wet" as it was "toxic" (with "poisonous" and "dangerous" jockeying for position), but in retrospect, I can most definitely affirm that "wet" was an appropriate adjective for the rag ("soaked", rather, but that's just "wet, but even more so").

GW

[Obscuraphile]

I do want to participate. I just don't want to have a boring "this is what a word ought to mean" discussion. It is also quite rich to suggest "water is wet" is a "commonly disputed issue".

I don't know, I was having great fun with the conversation until you began splitting quotes in this most odious of manners. A simple google search will produce plenty of results from news outlets, scientific papers, and educational sources discussing this very issue.

Yes, it is. It is liquid water in suspension.

Fascinating. With a single sentence you would deny an entire state of matter. I guess the air we all breath is just 78% liquid nitrogen in suspension, 20% liquid oxygen in suspension, 1% liquid argon in suspension, half a percent liquid carbon dioxide in suspension, and half a percent trace liquid elements in suspension.

Yes, I would.

Point. I will change my argument. No liquid, water or otherwise is wet, albeit for the same reasons.

And again you are trying to redefine something. I've already addressed this and you continuing to insist otherwise is, as I said above, boring.

Is water wet is a scientific question and often standard usages of words are insufficient to deal with scientific matters. Water does not become wet until you get enough water together, therefore if there can be not wet water then water on its own is not wet, only sufficiently large collections of water are wet.

It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

That's not the point. The question posed by the chicken and the egg is "where does an extant cycle begin?" The answer being equally arguable at any step. It might equally be phrased as where is the start of a wheel.

[Fiery Diamond]

That's not the point. The question posed by the chicken and the egg is "where does an extant cycle begin?" The answer being equally arguable at any step. It might equally be phrased as where is the start of a wheel.

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally. Unless you're positing that all cycles have always been in existence for an infinite length of time, extant cycles (temporal cycles, anyway) do, in fact, have a beginning. Whether that beginning is immediately apparent is a different story. The answer to such questions shouldn't be a quibbling about where the beginning is, it should be either an easy answer (because the answer is known and readily shown) or "I have insufficient information to answer that question."

"Where is the start of a wheel?" is fundamentally a different sort of question: it's not a cycle in the same sense; it's merely circularly shaped. In fact, it's much closer to "where is the start of a square" than "which came first: chicken or egg." And a square isn't a cycle in any sense.

[Obscuraphile]

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally. Unless you're positing that all cycles have always been in existence for an infinite length of time, extant cycles (temporal cycles, anyway) do, in fact, have a beginning. Whether that beginning is immediately apparent is a different story. The answer to such questions shouldn't be a quibbling about where the beginning is, it should be either an easy answer (because the answer is known and readily shown) or "I have insufficient information to answer that question."

"Where is the start of a wheel?" is fundamentally a different sort of question: it's not a cycle in the same sense; it's merely circularly shaped. In fact, it's much closer to "where is the start of a square" than "which came first: chicken or egg." And a square isn't a cycle in any sense.

I agree with you in the specific, but this is still not what I'm trying to get at, which could certainly be my fault for being inarticulate. What I'm driving at is that these questions fundamentally don't have answers in general. The original point of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is that you pick a side and defend it. If you break it down to "well historically there were creatures born from eggs before there were modern chickens" then you have missed the point.

Its the same with water isn't wet. Focusing on definitions and getting the "right" answer is the wrong way to look at the question. It's like Zeno's paradoxes, we can look at the world and say well obviously "this" but when we try to use the fundamental mathematical and logical systems that we base nearly everything upon we cannot logically prove what we perceive. They're all just fun little games that are interesting to argue.

I think water isn't wet and I've put forth my reasons why. Grey Wolf has said it's a dumb game, and he's entitled to that opinion, but I don't agree.

[BWR]

only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies

Well call me crazy, then. I quite like them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally.

It's more boring than dumb. Lets solve it, right now: eggs predate chickens by millions of years, or billions, depending on how you define egg, since fish lay eggs, and they were around before any land animal evolved.

To which a pedant will then say "well, the question is about chickens, and chicken eggs", to which I recommend being pedant back and say "no, it clearly does not specify 'chicken egg'", and call it good enough. But if you want to be kind, you can then inform them that there is no definition for chicken egg. For example, if you choose to define it as "an egg laid by a chicken", then the chicken had to come first. If instead you choose to define it as "an egg from which a chicken was born" then the egg came first. It all comes down to the definition, which doesn't exist, so you are free to pick the one you like best.

The problem is that this question, like the omphalos debate, was thought up before evolutionary theory, and thus it was a question about the cycle of nature in an unchanging world. It came down to "did the supreme being create a grown chicken ex nihilo, or did they create eggs which hatched". Debating the question today is indeed quite boring, since it has been answered by science (except for the definitional bit mentioned above).

It's like Zeno's paradoxes

It is indeed, and again you are right, but draw the wrong conclusions from it. Like the problem above, Zeno's paradoxes have been solved (in this case, by math)

Grey Wolf has said it's a dumb game

No, I have not. I said that it is a boring game. FYI, misrepresenting your opponent's words is generally considered bad form.

Fascinating. With a single sentence you would deny an entire state of matter. I guess the air we all breath is just 78% liquid nitrogen in suspension, 20% liquid oxygen in suspension, 1% liquid argon in suspension, half a percent liquid carbon dioxide in suspension, and half a percent trace liquid elements in suspension.

So what you read in my statement "water in 100% humidity air is a liquid in suspension" actually means "all air is liquid"? I'm not sure if you are intentionally misreading what I say or you are ignorant of basic physical reality, but I've had enough. Good bye.

Grey Wolf

[tomandtish]

It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

Grey Wolf

Actually, that one is easy. Something that was ALMOST a chicken (99.999..% there) laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken. So the egg came first.

Now, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did that moment happen? (ie, WHICH egg hatched the first chicken)? That's another argument entirely.

[Keltest]

Actually, that one is easy. Something that was ALMOST a chicken (99.999..% there) laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken. So the egg came first.

Now, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did that moment happen? (ie, WHICH egg hatched the first chicken)? That's another argument entirely.

But was the egg a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg that happened to hatch a chicken?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But was the egg a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg that happened to hatch a chicken?

Keltest gets it (and took the words out of my mouth). As I said, it comes down to what you choose as the definition of "chicken egg". And since there can be as many definitions as people, we can all be right, we are all wrong, and ultimately it is boring because of it.

GW

[Rockphed]

Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet, yet mercury is liquid at room temperature.

Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.

Count your blessings. I've had to dispose a rag soaked in mercury from a broken (old style) thermometer. Of course, at the time the adjective that came to mind wasn't so much "wet" as it was "toxic" (with "poisonous" and "dangerous" jockeying for position), but in retrospect, I can most definitely affirm that "wet" was an appropriate adjective for the rag ("soaked", rather, but that's just "wet, but even more so").

GW

I was going to interject that the reason I wouldn't call an object covered in mercury "wet" is because mercury adheres to itself much more strongly than it adheres to other things, and thus it tends to not "wet" things. (By which I am pointing out that a pipette full of mercury will have a meniscus pointing down while a pipette of water will have a meniscus pointing up). However, Grey_Wolf_c's example of a mercury soaked rag calls my worldview into question. I must therefore engage in a bloody crusade to cleanse the world of all things that challenge my worldview. Waaagh!

[Peelee]

I was going to interject that the reason I wouldn't call an object covered in mercury "wet" is because mercury adheres to itself much more strongly than it adheres to other things, and thus it tends to not "wet" things. (By which I am pointing out that a pipette full of mercury will have a meniscus pointing down while a pipette of water will have a meniscus pointing up). However, Grey_Wolf_c's example of a mercury soaked rag calls my worldview into question. I must therefore engage in a bloody crusade to cleanse the world of all things that challenge my worldview. Waaagh!

Also, to be fair, I present water adhering to itself much more strongly than it is adhering to the other surface, yet we would still call that surface wet:

[Rockphed]

Also, to be fair, I present water adhering to itself much more strongly than it is adhering to the other surface, yet we would still call that surface wet:[IMG]

Burn the offending evidence! Wait, it is wet, so it will be hard to burn.

[Peelee]

Burn the offending evidence! Wait, it is wet, so it will be hard to burn.

Nah, it's just on the internet. That should be easier to burn, right?

[Rockphed]

Nah, it's just on the internet. That should be easier to burn, right?

The internet is mostly made of plastic-encased glass tubes. How well does glass burn?

[Peelee]

The internet is mostly made of plastic-encased glass tubes. How well does glass burn?

It's even easier than that. Especially if it's made in Britain.

[Zea mays]

What about a duck’s back? Does it ever get wet?

[Maelstrom]

What about a duck’s back? Does it ever get wet?

Sure, when they're young ;)

But more back to the original question, with a forum name like yours, you should have the definitive answer ;)

[2D8HP]

This may be the most wide-ranging and argumentative threads in so few posts I've every seen!

I'm in awe!

...a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?

Floss, to get the food particles out of the way so more gets brushed.

[AuthorGirl]

:Floss, to get the food particles out of the way so more gets brushed.

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)

[Peelee]

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)

Mostly. You need more capital letters, and I see a very sad dearth of personal insults.

[Rockphed]

Mostly. You need more capital letters, and I see a very sad dearth of personal insults.

I'm fairly certain she needs fewer capital letters, more spelling errors, and pretty colors!

[Peelee]

I'm fairly certain she needs fewer capital letters, more spelling errors, and pretty colors!

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!

[gooddragon1]

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!

Spoiler: Combination Approach

Show

+


= Saucy Knave?

[Rockphed]

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!

Of all the insults I have received, "Pretentious Fopdoodle" is probably the best.

I love your avatar back. Dragons forever! Also, I think the last 3 people who have posted have dragon avatars.

[Peelee]

Of all the insults I have received, "Pretentious Fopdoodle" is probably the best.

I aim to please.

[2D8HP]

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)

Objectively?

Well I'm convinced.

PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!

I've a lot of history with "2D8HP", but so very tempted to change to "PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!"

[Peelee]

I've a lot of history with "2D8HP", but so very tempted to change to "PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!"

I hear it gives you an extra hit die.