[Isinlor]

> What is “wet” then? Liquid clinging to your skin through surface tension and other forces?

Yes.

> If your hand is submerged in a liquid that will not cling to your skin at all, is your hand “wet” while it is still submerged?

No. If you submerge your hand in mercury you will not get wet. The same if you coat you hand in aerogel. It is empirical fact that people do not describe this situations as being wet.

E.g.: https://youtu.be/GcdB5bFwio4?t=225

[MrsPeaches]

> If you submerge your hand in mercury you will not get wet.

Tangent: To what extent is that evolutionary? Wetness being a unique feeling could be, that we have evolved a greater sensory capacity to experience water, due to its abundance and importance.

Thus other words for touch (in English) generalise across a variety of sensory experiences (sticky, slimy, hard, etc.) where as wetness is specific to fluids that behave like water.

If I had a point, I guess it would be that maybe wetness is a especially unique experience. I don’t know whether this makes it a better or worse example to use.

[nkrisc]

Yes, exactly.

Then, having worn a nitrile glove while putting my hand in water before, I doubt that Bob would experience wetness.

Easily tested at home.

[Isinlor]

I distinctly remember a situation where I was being confused whether my hand was wet or not when wearing gloves. My hand was in fact not wet back then. I went to test it again to refresh my memory and the experience in glove is not identical, but it is certainly sufficiently close to have a potential to confuse. Especially when submerging a hand with glove and without glove the experience is very similar, the biggest difference is when you get the hand out of the water.

The glove provides quite a good approximation.

[nkrisc]

It’s similar, but it’s not the same. I’m not yet ready to accept that the sensation of “wet” is only the result of pressure and heat transfer. Which is why, though similar, you can still tell the difference.