Wmhoerr wrote: ↑
February 2nd, 2019, 3:41 pm
Belindi wrote: ↑
February 2nd, 2019, 9:51 am
"Water is wet" is not tautological . Water is not all that is wet, and nobody can know that water is wet until they have tested water to know what it feels like. A tautology is for example 2-1=1. Within mathematics 2-1 is the same as 1.
"Water is wet" is a standard example of a tautology used in all the junior schools. Look it up on the net. There are countless examples. I will quote from https//brainly.in/question/2266700. "The statement "water is wet" is true by definition. It is a tautology. The proof is by viture of the definition of the word water and the definition of the word wet."
There are two kinds of analytic truths
: logical or formal truths
& semantic or conceptual truths
* A sentence is logically/formally true
iff it is true by virtue of its form
. Logical truths (e.g. p v ~p) are called tautologies
(All theorems in logic are tautologies.)
* A sentence is semantically/conceptually true
iff it is true by virtue of its meaning/the meaning of its components
. Semantic truths (e.g. "Bachelors are unmarried") aren't logical tautologies.
The sentence "Water is wet" is not logically true, so it's semantically true at most—but is it really?
Semantic truths are analytic truths, and analytic truths are knowable a priori/non-empirically
. For example, you don't have to do any empirical inquiry or research in order to find out whether bachelors are unmarried.
But what about "Water is wet"? First of all, what does "wet" mean? It means "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)"
(Merriam-Webster), so "Water is wet" means "Water consists of/contains/is covered or soaked with water". Does this make sense? It doesn't, because it makes sense to ascribe wetness to other
things (e.g. "a wet stone", "a wet towel"), but not to water itself
. So it seems that "Water is wet" is not a semantic truth either, because it's not true at all
—as opposed to "Water makes
wet" and "Water is H2O". (That water is H20 is certainly not knowable a priori/non-empirically