Talk:Water: Difference between revisions
imported>Michael Hardy |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
: "Non-chemical" does not make sense. See my edit summary. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 17:16, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | : "Non-chemical" does not make sense. See my edit summary. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 17:16, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Definition of water == | |||
On the question of the definition of water: interestingly, in the philosophy of language, it is often discussed as an example what the meaning of "water" is (particularly, whether H20 is the "definition" of water--Putnam asked, if you came across something on "Twin Earth" that had the same observable properties as water, but was not H20, would that be water?). This is perhaps irrelevant, except in this general point: to speak of the ''definition'' of words for what philosophers call "natural kinds" (like water) is highly problematic. This does not mean that the words ''cannot'' be given definitions (obviously, they can), but rather that the criteria one might use to decide what is an "objective definition," so to speak, are not at all clear. And then of course most philosophers, following Wittgenstein and Quine, would in fact deny that words for natural kinds could be given definitions at all. | |||
I suspect that asserting that water "by definition" is or is not liquid belies any understanding of these issues. Many people do mean something liquid when they speak of water, but maybe that's just because that's how water usually is when we encounter it. Anyway, if water were a liquid "by definition," then it would be ''contradictory'' to speak of frozen water, or water in a gaseous state. Clearly, that is not (always) contradictory, because we do use those phrases with good sense. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:18, 24 August 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 19:18, 24 August 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Physics Workgroup, Chemistry Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Stub: no more than a few sentences |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | No |
Checklist last edited by | --Robert W King 11:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Wip
--Robert W King 12:23, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Possible References:
- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WeighingWater/
- http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/molecule.html
- http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/characteristics.html
Elements
There are four "elements" of the earth--water, fire, wind, and earth itself; I have tried to alleviate any potential confusion by adding "non-chemical" element, and I hope it suits. --Robert W King 12:36, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
- "Non-chemical" does not make sense. See my edit summary. Michael Hardy 17:16, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
Definition of water
On the question of the definition of water: interestingly, in the philosophy of language, it is often discussed as an example what the meaning of "water" is (particularly, whether H20 is the "definition" of water--Putnam asked, if you came across something on "Twin Earth" that had the same observable properties as water, but was not H20, would that be water?). This is perhaps irrelevant, except in this general point: to speak of the definition of words for what philosophers call "natural kinds" (like water) is highly problematic. This does not mean that the words cannot be given definitions (obviously, they can), but rather that the criteria one might use to decide what is an "objective definition," so to speak, are not at all clear. And then of course most philosophers, following Wittgenstein and Quine, would in fact deny that words for natural kinds could be given definitions at all.
I suspect that asserting that water "by definition" is or is not liquid belies any understanding of these issues. Many people do mean something liquid when they speak of water, but maybe that's just because that's how water usually is when we encounter it. Anyway, if water were a liquid "by definition," then it would be contradictory to speak of frozen water, or water in a gaseous state. Clearly, that is not (always) contradictory, because we do use those phrases with good sense. --Larry Sanger 20:18, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
- Physics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Chemistry Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Advanced Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Chemistry Advanced Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Physics Developed Articles
- Chemistry Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Chemistry Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Physics Stub Articles
- Chemistry Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Physics External Articles
- Chemistry External Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Chemistry Underlinked Articles
- Physics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Chemistry Cleanup
- Cleanup