Now that's real philosophy.

What we needs must do is work out the consequences of both approaches, and decide which grammar better suits our porpoise.

I think ‘wet’ is only useful in the context of describing something which is otherwise dry - paint, matches, and so on. So the fact that fishes are immersed in water renders the description ‘wet’ redundant.

If a fish is in water, is it wet, — Posty McPostface

Yes, but only on the inside.
-------
Now that I’ve read Wayfarer’s post, come to think of it, you could have a dry fish in water … I’m thinking along the lines of smoked salmon. Which only further substantiates my position.

So So my smoked cod is a dried fish, and when I poach my smoked cod, it's wet?

I think ‘wet’ is only useful in the context of describing something which is otherwise dry — Wayfarer

Hence "wet liberal".

Isn’t moisture a type of wetness? I say "yes", so yes.

Do you become less wet or wetter when you jump into a swimming pool? How about when you climb out (considering that water falls from you onto your surroundings)? Is there any reason things should be different for a fish?

I feel as though language has failed us here, just not sure how.

Moisture might cause wetness, but I wouldn't count it as the very same thing. Moistness, well, that's something else.

So wetness admits of degrees?

If I step in a puddle, am I wet? If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into the water, at what specific point do I become wet?

Language is our tool. It's up to use to work out how we ought best speak of wet fish.

Well, with a tad more seriousness, “wet” can only hold meaning via “not-wet/dry”. So I agree with what Wayfarer said. Since fish live and die in water without ever (typically) being not-wet (not all fish jump out of water), it wouldn’t make sense to say that a fish in water is wet … unless you conceptualize the fish out of water as well.

Oops. Moistness, yes, that's what I was getting at.

So wetness admits of degrees? — Banno

Yes, hence phrases like "soaking wet".

If I step in a puddle, am I wet? — Banno

In that case the part of you that stepped in the puddle would be wet (if exposed). The rest not necessarily so. And if the rest of you were dry whether you say you are as a whole wet or not is a matter of taste. You both are and you are not unlike a fish fully submerged in water, which most definitely is.

If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into the water, at what specific point do I become wet? — Banno

See above.

No, it genuinely seems like a fallacy of composition...

made apparent by ambiguity of the property of being 'wet'.

apparent — Posty McPostface

SO we must rout out the ambiguity?

Words are useless if ambiguous?

So we might have moist liberals...

Is moist less wet than soaking? It seems so. Presumably then it is possible that a fish in water is soaking, while one in the hand is merely moist?

Describing a fish in water as wet is superfluous (unless the bugger is wrapped up) but not any less accurate then describing a lizard in the desert as dry. It's superfluous because it's impossible not to be wet when fully submersed in and in direct contact with water, but not impossible not to be dry when on land.

Not necessarily in an informal language. If we want to remove the ambiguity then formalizing the property of being wet would seem of use or economy of speech.

A fish does not (as far as I know) repel water, so when it is in the water it is wet. It is also wet when it comes out of the water to sun itself in the bottom of your boat. Sunning fish frequently spritz themselves with moisturizing lotion. Many fish coat themselves in slippery fishsnot while in the water. It makes it more difficult for sexual predators to grope them.

Can something in water remain dry? If the surface of an object repeals water, it would not get wet in water. The surface of oil droplets or a whole can of oil can be in water, and not be wet. You won't get wet if you go into a greasy spoon, unless the waitress throws hot coffee in your face for uttering subtle sexual innuendo.

I say fish are all wet, unless they are not.

So we might have moist liberals... — Banno

OK, with this part, unless we’re talking about sexuality in code and are refereeing to the female sex, I don’t yet know what you here mean. (maybe not important)

Presumably then it is possible that a fish in water is soaking, while one in the hand is merely moist? — Banno

Well, what I’m upholding is that the fish isn’t soaking unless it then steps out of the water somehow—this so as to compare soaking wet with being merely moist (maybe due to perspiration after drying off).

So we might have moist liberals... — Banno

They are quite moist if they are washed up. At least for a few minutes...

Well, what I’m upholding is that the fish isn’t soaking unless it then steps out of the water somehow — javra

To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.

E.g. "Make or allow (something) to become thoroughly wet by immersing it in liquid."
‘soak the beans overnight in water’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/soak

So, a qualifier was needed for the ambiguous quality or property of being 'wet'?

If the fish is soaking (wet), it's also wet. There is nothing ambiguous in this case.

To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water. — Baden

There are degrees of wetness, certainly.

Plants, animals, and insects are always somewhat wet. Were they to be completely dehydrated, they would be dead; brittle; rigid; hard; some of the above or all of the above, depending. Fish may spend decades in the water and not be any wetter on the last day of their drab wretched lives than they were on the first day. Fish and animals are equally wet on the inside. Only the surface wetness varies.

Being in contact with water is not the same as being "wet". Many plastics repel water, so a water-repelling plastic bottle is not wet on the inside, even though it is full of water.

Only the surface wetness varies. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but this is all that we refer to when we speak of being "wet". It does not mean the same as hydrated.

"Covered or saturated with water or another liquid."

Covered (not infused with).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wet

@Bitter Crank

A dry fish.