>We agree that liquid water is wet because we can't find anything (yet) that says liquid water is not wet, it's simple as that and science is ultimately as simple as that.

I find this a weird example of something that has "Enough evidence such that no evidence to the contrary can stand."

"Water is wet" is a definition, not a scientific finding/description. "Water tends to adhere to, and penetrate, materials." That's sort of a scientific finding. "We call this condition wet" isn't so much.

Science, by Popper's definition, is something that can be falsified but has not yet been so. If no evidence could contradict our current findings then, by definition, our current findings are not falsifiable.

I realize that I'm quibbling about definitions, I guess I just want to point out that your level of evidence is dangerously close to being a self reinforcing tautology. Similar to how any religion justifies itself.