What? No, sorry, I meant words like “wet”. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your original question. Are you asking how we came up with ideas like definitional ambiguity and context dependence? Probably organized thought evolved through the ages… how is that relevant?
Indeed. And?
I’m trying to say that words like “wet” were just developed early on and were retained despite more precise terms because of their casual usefulness. They’re just useful, ambiguous holdovers from earlier eras, but in and of themselves, I think they’re more a linguistic question than a philosophical or scientific one. Whether we decide “drop” to be 2 molecules or 20,000 is just a matter of semantics.
Unless, of course, we ask the separate but related question of “At what quantity do water molecules start behaving collectively like a drop?”, but that will vary depending on ambient circumstances and isn’t really helpful for casual usage, where “drop” is more readily understood to be “tiny bit of water that usually falls down”.
I was not asking a question (except at one point rhetorically). I was answering somebody else, and then you jumped into the discussion. Apparently you did not bother to read the preceding posts in order to figure out what it was about, so your contribution was more misconceived than I took it to be. I gave you too much credit and took you seriously. My bad.
True. Sorites is not technically a paradox (nor is it ironic). It’s more of a mind game. The game highlights the underlying semantic assumptions of descriptors such as ‘heap’. My personal choice is that a four grain arrangement of sand is not a heap. To be a heap there must be sufficient grains to allow the heap to display that sand type’s typical angle of repose.
He wants to ask the question and listen to us rattle on. I am totally ok with that.
I don’t know how separate linguistics and semantics are from philosophy, but they’re both scientific disciplines, so it’s a scientific question even if the science isn’t being directly applied to the water or sand. I’m still interested in the question even if it’s a question about us and how we use language.
Mildly related addendum:
My kids were A) in junior hight and B) smartasses back in the time when fast food places gave you as many condiment packets as you asked for, for free. And they had learned a new word. So they decided to perform an experiment. They and a couple of their friends went to every fast food place in town and ordered fries. When asked how many packets of catsup they wanted, they’d reply: “a shitload.”
They would not give a number, but would only repeat: “a shitload, man.” Then they’d count the number of packets given. They declared that, averaged over the whole of Davis, California, a shitload was six.
They fully understood the definitional ambiguity and context dependence. That’s why they always ordered just one order of fries and always used the same words when ordering. They were as rigorous as possible with the experiment. And they used math to get a discrete, numerical answer. The fact that it could be called a bullshit answer due to the definitional ambiguity and context dependence, no matter how rigorous and numerically precise the data collection and analysis was, was what made the exercise totally hilarious to them.
I thought surface tension guaranteed that there would always be a single, uniform drop size given the same conditions? I mean, there’s a specific mass of water that is always more than surface tension will hold together.
But there are many possible different conditions, as already mentioned. The drop could be coming off a flat horizontal surface, a point, or something in between, like the bottom of a spoon. Those will all have different drop sizes. Different surface materials could also have an effect on the drop size.
