"Water is Not H20"

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

"Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

PH is fond of stating 'Water is H20' is a fact, i.e. feature of reality independent of individual[s]' opinion, beliefs and judgment or any human based FSK, to the extreme that if there are no humans 'water is H2O' eternally.
But it is proven this is a false claim, and there is no such fact [water is H2O] independent of the human conditions.

Here is what PH is claiming;
Consider the proposition that water is H2O.
The fact that water is essentially a compound of hydrogen and oxygen was discovered in the eighteenth century, and its molecular formula was worked out in the nineteenth.
But these are not the facts on the basis of which the distinction between water and other substances initially depended, and water would still be H2O even if these facts had never been discovered.
So the proposition that water is H2O is not analytic: it is not simply true in virtue of the conventions of language.
It is, in fact, true independently of these conventions, since its truth is independent of whether anyone has the language to express it.
Moreover, if it is true, then it is necessarily true, for the molecular structure of water is essential to its nature.
The substance in the glass in front of me would not be water if it were not H2O, however like water it may be in appearance, savour, function, and so on.
pg. 16 The Philosophy of Nature - Brian Ellis

Here is paper that counter Ellis claims;
Ellis argues that certain essential properties of objects in the world not only determine the nature of these objects but also how they will behave in any situation.

In this paper I will critique Ellis's essentialism from the perspective of the philosophy of chemistry, arguing that our current knowledge of chemistry in fact does not lend itself to essentialist interpretations and that this seriously undercuts Ellis's project.

In particular I will criticize two key distinctions Ellis draws between internal vs. external properties and essential vs. accidental properties, showing that at the chemical level such distinctions are insupportable.
If essential properties only exist at the level of sub-atomic physics, then Ellis's hopes that essentialism will provide a theoretical basis for a philosophy of chemistry are at best hopes for a very distant future, since the argument that chemical structure and dynamics can be explained at the quantum level derived is purely from analogy to much simpler systems than those chemists actually study.
This suggests that we have very little scientific evidence that scientific essentialism is a viable ontology.
Why Water Is Not H2O
What we ordinary identify as 'water' is not solely H2O but contain other essential elements and depending on many other variables.

So, that 'water is H2O' is contextual, i.e. conditioned upon specific Framework and System of knowledge sustained by human subjects.
In this essay I have discussed an assumption of semantic externalist
theories which I called the coordination principle. This is the idea that
natural language kinds and scientific kinds line up or can be mapped
onto one another one-to-one.
A closer look at water shows that there is not this type of simple one-to-one match between chemical and ordinary language kinds.

In fact, the use of kind terms in chemistry is often context sensitive and in cases where chemists want to ensure no ambiguity, they use a very complex and nuanced set of kind terms, none of which could be reasonably associated with the ordinary language kind term “water” alone.
Since we cannot just turn to chemistry to find a single chemical kind that can be used to determine the extension of “water,” there isn’t any strict sense in which water is H2O, because exactly what water is depends on the context in which “water” is uttered.
http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/pap ... rfinal.pdf
Note the reference to International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry which imply 'consensus' within a collective of subjects, i.e. FSK;
Chemists deal with the multiplicity of chemical kinds in two different ways. Most often, they deal with it by using context-sensitive kind terms.
These terms pick out different chemical kinds in different explanatory and conversational contexts. “Water,” as uttered by a chemist, will sometime refer to the isomers of H2O in their natural abundances, sometimes to any isomer of H2O, and sometimes, perhaps, to a homogenous sample of H2 16O depending on the circumstances of the utterance.

When forced to be explicit, chemists use a set of very specific kind terms corresponding to very specific chemical kinds. The results of chemists being forced to be explicit can be found in the extremely precise and often very complex nomenclature established by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
In this nomenclature, even the different phases of water, a concept which I haven’t discussed, are given their own designations like water (I), water (VI), etc.
The vast majority of chemists and the chemical literature, however, refers to substances in a more straightforward manner—using terms like “water,” or “ethanol,” or “tetrahydrafuran,” which are clear in context.
pg8. http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/pap ... rfinal.pdf
What is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
For example, to be realistic, the following qualification to FSK is necessary,
"water [conventional, linguistic FSK] is H2O [science-chemistry-FSK]."

So, what PH's claims as fact, e.g. 'water is H20' is a pseudo-fact.
As I had stated, PH's fact is a noumenal illusion, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

References:

The Philosophy of Nature
A Guide to the New Essentialism

Brian Ellis

Is water H2O? Is gold Au?
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/ ... 81.article

Is water H2O?
http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/33716

Why Water Is Not H2O, and Other Critiques of Essentialist Ontology from the Philosophy of Chemistry

Is Water H2O?
Evidence, Realism and Pluralism

Hasok Chang
https://www.amazon.com/Water-H2O-Eviden ... 9400796463
This book exhibits deep philosophical quandaries and intricacies of the historical development of science lying behind a simple and fundamental item of common sense in modern science, namely the composition of water as H2O. Three main phases of development are critically re-examined, covering the historical period from the 1760s to the 1860s: the Chemical Revolution (through which water first became recognized as a compound, not an element), early electrochemistry (by which water’s compound nature was confirmed), and early atomic chemistry (in which water started out as HO and became H2O). In each case, the author concludes that the empirical evidence available at the time was not decisive in settling the central debates and therefore the consensus that was reached was unjustified or at least premature. This leads to a significant re-examination of the realism question in the philosophy of science and a unique new advocacy for pluralism in science. Each chapter contains three layers, allowing readers to follow various parts of the book at their chosen level of depth and detail. The second major study in "complementary science", this book offers a rare combination of philosophy, history and science in a bid to improve scientific knowledge through history and philosophy of science.


Twin Earth thought experiment
Hilary Putnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Eart ... experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Eart ... #Criticism
In his original article, Putnam had claimed that the reference of the twins' "water" varied even though their psychological states were the same. Tyler Burge subsequently argued in "Other Bodies" (1982) that the twins' mental states are different: Oscar has the concept H2O, while Twin Oscar has the concept XYZ. Putnam has since expressed agreement with Burge's interpretation of the thought experiment. (See Putnam's introduction in Pessin and Goldberg 1996, xxi.)
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is an intro to Water is Not H2O by Michael Weisberg.
To get the details read the full paper.
http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/pap ... rfinal.pdf

Water is Not H2O
Michael Weisberg

In defending semantic externalism, philosophers of language have often assumed that there is a straightforward connection between scientific kinds and the natural kinds recognized by ordinary language users.1
For example, the claim that water is H2O assumes that the ordinary language kind water corresponds to a chemical kind, which contains all the molecules with molecular formula H2O as its members.
This assumption about the coordination between ordinary language kinds and scientific kinds is important for the externalist program, because it is what allows us to discover empirically the extensions of ordinary language kind terms.

While I am sympathetic to the semantic externalist project, I think that the discussion of chemical kinds by philosophers of language has been rather badly oversimplified, hiding difficulties that arise when we try to coordinate scientific kinds with the natural kinds recognized by ordinary language users.2
In this paper, I will examine these difficulties by looking more closely at the chemist’s notion of water.
http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/pap ... rfinal.pdf
What is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
For example, to be realistic, the following qualification to FSK is necessary when claiming 'water is H2O,
"water [conventional, linguistic FSK] is H2O [science-chemistry-FSK]."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Water is NOT H20!
Because if we look at enough samples of enough water [in ordinary language], we will find H2O17, H2O18, HDO16, D2O17, T2O18, etc., in addition to H2O16.
In fact, natural samples of water almost always contain a mixture of these other isomers.

My point is what PH's arrogant claim, the fact that 'water is H20' period without any mention of the science-chemistry FSK is misleading.

Here are some notes on the OP extracted from:
Water is Not H2O
Michael Weisberg

"..................
In defending semantic externalism, philosophers of language have often assumed that there is a straightforward connection between scientific kinds and the natural kinds recognized by ordinary language users.
For example, the claim that water is H2O assumes that the ordinary language kind water corresponds to a chemical kind, which contains all the molecules with molecular formula H2O as its members.

At some point in human history, when in causal contact with water, someone baptized water with the word “water.”
The reference of the term “water” is fixed for the community of language users in virtue of their causal connections to the baptizer.

The coordination principle presumes that the very same kinds that chemists discover are the ones relevant to ordinary language.

Putnam and Kripke seem to believe that in the case of water, chemists describe a chemical kind who’s members include all and only the molecules with molecular formula H2O.
Appealing to this fact and to the coordination principle, they conclude that water is H2O.

Closer examination of what water really is, I believe, shows that for chemists, water isn’t just the set of all molecules with molecular formula H2O.

Linus Pauling famously told us that Chemistry is
“the science of substances— their structure, their properties, and the reactions that change them into other substances.” (Pauling, 1947)
Using slightly more contemporary language, we can say that Chemistry studies the structure and reactivity of substances.

Both Hydrogen and Oxygen are found in a variety of Isotopes in nature, giving rise to the phenomenon of isotopic isomerism.
Isotopes are sets of atoms with the same numbers of protons and electrons, but different numbers of neutrons.

Isotopes of Hydrogen are Deuterium & tritium
Naturally occurring samples of Hydrogen contain a mixture of Hydrogen-1 and deuterium.

Oxygen also has three Isotopes—16-O, 17-O, and 18-O.

If we look at enough samples of enough water, we will find H2O17, H2O18, HDO16, D2O17, T2O18, etc., in addition to H2O16.
In fact, natural samples of water almost always contain a mixture of these other isomers.

Something seems right about this suggestion, for we are starting to see how our kind terms in ordinary language may not map neatly onto chemical kinds.

It is clear that the system of kinds recognized within Chemistry is very complex and multi-faceted, which is at odds with the coordination principle’s demand for a single chemical kind to be associated with the ordinary language kind water.

When forced to be explicit, chemists use a set of very specific kind terms corresponding to very specific chemical kinds.
The results of chemists being forced to be explicit can be found in the extremely precise and often very complex nomenclature established by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

Our very brief examination of the nature of water has revealed that there is no single kind for water that is useful in all chemical contexts. [FSK]

The first result suggests that the one-to-one match between kind terms in natural language and kind terms in the natural sciences required by the coordination principle may not be possible.

The complexity of material substances demands that chemists, the people who interact with them at the greatest level of detail, use a multi-faceted and often context sensitive set of kind terms.

In fact, the use of kind terms in Chemistry is often context sensitive and in cases where chemists want to ensure no ambiguity, they use a very complex and nuanced set of kind terms, none of which could be reasonably associated with the ordinary language kind term “water” alone.

Since we cannot just turn to Chemistry to find a single chemical kind that can be used to determine the extension of “water,” there isn’t any strict sense in which water is H2O, because exactly what water is depends on the context in which “water” is uttered.
............... "
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

My point;
whatever is claimed as fact must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
In the above case
water [ordinary language FSK] is H20* [science-chemistry-FSK].

* can be Water is H2O17, H2O18, HDO16, D2O17, T2O18, etc., in addition to H2O16.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:37 pm VA, do you claim that, before humans evolved, what we call water didn't exist?
Your above is an oxymoron.

If there are no humans, there is no "we" and 'what we call water'.

Even after humans emerged,
'what we call water' is merely a linguistic [ordinary language] fact.

see my thread;
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

As I had stated, 'water is H20' with philosophical rigor should be;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

In this very contentious issue, I insist that whenever you mentioned 'Water is H20' you must qualify and present it in like;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

As such whatever you claim as a fact must be qualified to its specific FSK.
Since a FSK is constructed by human subjects, whatever the fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

As such a moral FSK grounded on human condition is possible.
Where its inputs of moral FSK are significantly from the scientific FSK, the moral FSK will have reasonable reliability and credibility.
Just as the scientific FSK is objective, the moral FSK is also objective, therefore morality is objective.

Your 'water is H20' is merely an abstraction from the many different type of H2Os to represent certain liquids, it is not a real fact per se.

Your refutation that 'Morality is Not Objective' is grounded on a definition of "what is a fact" that is illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.
Your claim 'Morality is Not Objective' is fatuous.

"Water is Not H20"
to be philosophically correct;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "Water is Not H20"

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:53 am My point;
whatever is claimed as fact must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
In the above case
water [ordinary language FSK] is H20* [science-chemistry-FSK].

* can be Water is H2O17, H2O18, HDO16, D2O17, T2O18, etc., in addition to H2O16.
What FSK is this set of statements conditioned on?
It seems to be comparing contexts and FSKs, so it would not be any of the FSKs mentioned.
My question is similar to the question 'what FSK has determined that the scientific FSK is the most accurate FSK'?
This isn't a gotcha, or at least it isn't only one. It should be of interest to all parties, I think.
Post Reply