By Kunmi Dosunmu

Ever since the early 2000’s, a question has plagued people from all ages with the competence to provide an opinion: is water, the liquid lifeline of our planet, wet? The question has little to no consequential value in its philosophy. It simply asks that if the concepts function, be defined as the concept itself affecting its self at any point, would equate to the concept being defined as its affect on other things. Basically, whether or not the water is, on its own, defined as the same state as objects that make contact with it: wet. Yet Innovation Academy(IA) was asked this question and through taking a closer dive into the potential nature of the question, found some incredibly vast information that could genuinely back up if water is wet or not. Through a survey conducted of 52 random students of IA, its an even split of 46% agreeing and disagreeing with 8% deciding neither. Whether its the definition of the word wet, to the ever defining state of water on its self, this question’s previous eyerolling listeners can finally get a grasp on how deep this trench goes.

Wetness is the main aspect that needs to be defined in order to truly understand water’s capabilities. Renowned water drinker Mr. Seals, a Physics teacher from IA, explains his definition of wetness. He states, “Hmm. I guess in physics, we would typically describe wetness by its effects on other systems. And so, um, if a surface is wet, we would probably assume that it would have the properties of perhaps reducing friction. It would also perhaps have the properties of reducing the amount of heat that is being produced or lowering the temperature of a system.” From a physic’s standpoint, Wetness is a state of an opposing surface coming in contact with an unusual liquid. The effect of their contact includes a change in texture, a reduction of friction on the surface and an instance of changing temperature. James Flury [10], a participant of the survey, uses this idea as an argument to state that water is wet because “If two molecules of water are touching, wouldn’t that make it wet”. Applying this to the machinations of water, conditioning a non-water material into being in contact with water, the non-water material should become “wet”. However, in response to asking what could be defined as a surface and if the surface has to be a solid, Seals also states “No, I don’t think that I would define it as that. I would think a surface would just be anything that something, like an object might slide against or move along. And so technically speaking, you could call the surface of the water a surface if a boat is getting off the top of it” It’s possible to interpret a surface as anything that can be slid across. Thus water in contact with a waters surface, could cause the water’s surface to briefly be considered wet. That is all in if people are willing to accept a water’s surface as an affectable surface for another source of water to take place.

Water’s contact with itself is a bit of an odd topic, but one of the more designated parts that can iron out whether or not water’s state is wet. According to Ms. Freeman, a chemistry teacher at IA and avid water enjoyer, she states: ” It doesn’t have to, if the water and the surface are the same temperature, there may not be a change in temperature due to thermal equilibrium”. Her account is in comparison to Mr. Seals’ theoretical claim of water and a water’s surface. Stating that while looking at it in its physical, bigger picture mechanics does include a small chance of declaring a wet state of water, in terms of chemistry, its not completely true if there is not a change in temperature thanks to equilibrium. She also explains “What is a… sense? So you feel, so, like, from a feeling perspective, you can feel moisture. Which, of course, you’re not going to feel moisture unless there is some type of liquid present, water being an example. are a visual sensory as well, where I can see moisture on something. Therefore, it is wet…As an artist, there are people, not me as an artist, but I know artists who can draw a picture that makes it look like there is water on the surface of something. Obviously it’s not wet. But that is a drawing in a perspective. So you could have something that looks like there is liquid present, and therefore it looks wet. But that’s that’s all wet is. Is it a liquid? Therefore, can I feel it on my skin? And it’s a sensory thing, or can I see it?” Stepping away from the chemistry point of view, Ms. Freeman does provide another perspective on wetness via the way it looks on art and when perceiving what wet is. Similarly, John Michael Purser [12] had a similar statement, as he argues water isn’t wet because “Water is not inherently wet, wetness is the product of something having moisture on it. Water does not have moisture, it is moisture. Water is not wet.” There are some surfaces that look or can come in contact and feel wet. A very high testament to how conceptual wet water really is.

The central question is somehow a challenging test of concepts that consistently keeps people on their toes on where they stand on the concept of water. The true discovery from the question is how, surprisingly, a group of individuals are somehow able to completely even out in deciding the state of water as wet or not. As water in its alone state, is it considered wet? When in contact with another system of water, is either substance considered wet? Maybe if its running water connecting to another waters’ surface, the point of contact is wet. We will never truly know. So all that’s asked is this: Is water wet?