The discussion would be helped if you were to provide some details about what water is in addition to being H2O, especially since many of our Members do not have access to Canadian TV.

I'm of opinion that H2O content is not suffice to determine the linguistic reference 'water' as used within many linguistic communities. Does that help?

Water is whatever fills the water-role.

Very enlightening. That is either true by definition (and so, trivially true) or it is clearly false A solid may fill "the water roll" but not be water. For instance, a solid may fill the role of adding weight to something that water once filled. But a solid is not water.

All I know of water is that it's an acid. That's what I was taught at school many moons ago.
Somebody backed it up by reminding me that water in plastic bottles tastes like plastic. The water actually melts away a thin film of plastic.

Looking at the label might explain it. Drinking water contains metals. However I do recall a quality bottle that didn't contain any metals at all. Pure. But I don't remember how that tasted.

There's the physically definition H2O, then there's the ecologically freshwater and saltwater.

Rainwater, very different from region to region, country to country, some is highly aciding, some is poluted, some is somewhat clean.

Most rainwater concaint a tiny amount of salt, and over time form salt mines ..etc

................what excatly did you want to know and discuss?

I see that, as usual, your post is dripping with sarcasm.



Are you saying that the water-role is "adding weight to something"? I thought the water-role was to be wet, clear, odorless, refreshing, denser than air, etc, etc, etc... Your idea of the water-role seems rather naive whereas mine encompasses more than I care to list.

Pure water is H2 O... And water is almost never pure.... Consider the lovely gulf of Mexico... It was a source of food for so many, but one man's kettle is another man's toilet...

---------- Post added 05-07-2010 at 01:24 PM ----------


I do not believe that is correct, because if you put an acid and a base to gether, water is formed and a salt, and what ever is in greater quantity, acid or base with remain in solution... In plastic bottles there are a lot of free, unbonded hydrocarbons that work their way into what ever solution you are storing... It has nothing to do with the ph of the solution... And a lot of glass contains heavy metal... Never drink out of an old Chrystal decanter, they are loaded with lead that leaches into the liquor..

I am telling you...They are out to get us...Or maybe just you, but i am hiding behind you and they might miss..

Two dimensionalism, David Chalmers. Should answer your question if you can prove the theory to be sound. Here is a write up of his; very interesting. It is in the subject of theory of naming; here is a quick intro:
Two dimensionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is his full paper; should prove to be fascinating, dense and time consuming reading:

The Foundations of Two-Dimensional Semantics

A quick note: this does not belong to the philosophy of science section, I think that the logic section might be more appropriate.

This is a loaded thread XD

In the case of trying to decide what constitutes of "knowledge of water", we typically resort to looking at the underlying structure in a scientific manner - H20. However, as has been pointed out, "knowledge of water" in a non-theoretical, but more nominal sense, would dispute that. Additionally, as Quine might point out, if we give up how we understanding the of meaning of water, we lose the separation of the empirical and theoretical assumptions of what water is and thereby any chance at discovering "knowledge of water." In other words, there is no scientific, nominal, or any other way of determining what "knowledge of water" is.

Here are two examples to make this point. Take any definition of water, say, as the "chemical compound of H20" or "whatever fills the water-role" - what if I question the ability of the definer to make the definition? I may be skeptical of the methods used to arrive at the definitions - how can I know that the scientific theories related to chemistry, on which the compounds H20 is based, are valid? You regress into the problem of induction.

This example is not the strongest one. For those of you unswayed, look at this second example:

H20 is also the chemical composition of ice and steam. However we would not say that is water. So then must we add to the definition, H20 at a certain temperature? This is not the case either, as in differing altitudes, water turns to ice and steam at different temperatures. So we must add barometric pressure to our definition.

However, there are additional conditions I can think of off the top of my head. When I'm driving in the desert, I often see what appears to be water in the distance. Upon further examination I come to find this was not water at all - merely a mirage. So we must add to the definition: ideal conditions for correct perception of external objects.

My point is that this "list" will never be satisfied; it will either never end, or end in a paradox, with one constraint conflicting with another. In short, we can never know what "knowledge of water" is.

This is different than knowing what water is, by the way.

It does not matter how we conceive of anything... The thought is not the thing...I am not saying we should not form ideas of what we find around us, but for someting as essential to life as water, the concept is just ourr beginning of understanding of the thing... All those knowledge is power folks who believe their concepts give them power over nature entirely miss the point, that knowledge should give us self control, power over the worst aspects of self... A single gallon of oil is enough to pollute a million gallons of water, and we have not begun to know the effects of this latest spill on our ecosystem, but I will tell you that the knowledge people were behind it... Some one knew they could do it safely... Some one knew they could make a profit doing so... Some one knew how to take this national resource as though private property, and some one knew how to pull strings in Washington to get what they wanted... No one will admit that this disaster was what they wanted, but in fact, it was what they wanted; and the courts which just recently slashed the Exxon Valdeze damages after working it through the court with torturous slowness were sending a message that such crimminal knowedge was fine... Water is not water... Water is life, and you cannot know that fact as a concept, but out of the totality of your own being, holistically; in a sense: metaphysically.