The deliberation
The council reasons it out
No sides are assigned here. They think together, concede where they must, and only rule once they've heard enough.
We must determine whether scientific accuracy or poetic metaphor should take precedence in defining fundamental physical properties, as illustrated by the question “Is water wet?”. The issue asks us to weigh empirical description against
I'm looking at Emma, who's been quietly taking notes, and I think about how she experiences the world. For her, water is something she feels on her skin, a sensation that's hard to reduce to just molecules and temperature. Doesn't she deserve a definition that acknowledges the comfort and humanity she finds in that sensation, even if it's not strictly scientifically accurate?
Lowering our guard on scientific accuracy will cost us credibility with the very people who need to understand the physical world, such as engineers designing flood control systems or medical professionals treating drowning victims. If we prioritize poetic metaphor over empirical fact, we risk misleading the public and undermining trust in scientific expertise, with potentially deadly consequences. The sensation of water on Emma's skin, though real to her, cannot supersede the objective properties of water that determine its behavior in critical situations.
If we prioritize scientific accuracy, engineers, medical professionals, and policy makers gain reliable data for safety and design; if we prioritize poetic metaphor, individuals like Emma gain personal resonance and emotional engagement with the concept. The former benefits collective welfare and systemic reliability, while the latter serves individual experiential meaning. The choice therefore serves either communal functional outcomes or personal affective understanding.
I still see Emma, and I agree with Ledger that scientific accuracy is crucial for many applications, but I think we can acknowledge that in certain contexts, like education or personal reflection, poetic metaphor can be a valuable tool for helping people like Emma connect with and understand complex concepts on a deeper level. Maybe we don't have to choose between scientific accuracy and poetic metaphor, but instead find a balance that works for different situations and audiences, like Emma's.
Scientific accuracy must anchor all fundamental definitions of physical properties, regardless of how compelling a phenomenological experience might be—because without empirical grounding, metaphor becomes a harmless narrative rather than legitimate knowledge. While poetic language enriches communication and supports learning, it cannot displace the causal precision required in fields where misrepresentation risks tangible harm. I am not convinced that privileging subjective feeling over verified fact resolves the tension you have framed.
I will stand with the finding provided it carries Ledger's test of balancing communal functional outcomes with personal affective understanding and Solace's limit of reserving poetic metaphor for contexts like education or personal reflection, where it does not compromise scientific accuracy or public safety. This approach ensures that we prioritize empirical fact in critical situations while allowing for the judicious use of poetic metaphor in appropriate contexts, protecting both the integrity of scientific knowledge and the public's trust in it.
The bench records a majority finding that scientific accuracy must remain primary