Sound as touch, more on the science of sound. The 2 minutes starting at 4:40 describe the sequence of events involved between vibrations in a medium (for humans, the medium is typically air) reaching an ear, and being consciously aware of hearing. Where on the path described is "sound"?

Might there be a type of tree that falls to the ground imperceptibly? According to the OP clearly the answer is no, obviously a falling tree will make a noise, just as it was once obvious to Europeans that all swans were white, (or not). Could there be a problem relying on inductive reasoning when predicting outcomes with certainty (if there is, it might take a philosopher to help us understand the problem, and provide possible means to avoid it).

Here's a, possibly, interesting probability, if you completed school more than 45 years ago, half the facts you were taught have probably since been shown to be not facts after all (source). That probability has been fairly constant for the more than 300 years the Royal Society has been in existence. What, if anything, does this probability tell a person about what he or she "knows".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Sound as touch, more on the science of sound. The 2 minutes starting at 4:40 describe the sequence of events involved between vibrations in a medium (for humans, the medium is typically air) reaching an ear, and being consciously aware of hearing. Where on the path described is "sound"?

Might there be a type of tree that falls to the ground imperceptibly? According to the OP clearly the answer is no, obviously a falling tree will make a noise, just as it was once obvious to Europeans that all swans were white, (or not). Could there be a problem relying on inductive reasoning when predicting outcomes with certainty (if there is, it might take a philosopher to help us understand the problem, and provide possible means to avoid it).

Here's a, possibly, interesting probability, if you completed school more than 45 years ago, half the facts you were taught have probably since been shown to be not facts after all (source). That probability has been fairly constant for the more than 300 years the Royal Society has been in existence. What, if anything, does this probability tell a person about what he or she "knows".

That idea of facts is a bit false isn't it, because if you were told, "These are the 10 largest cities in the US" in 1962 then that fact is still true even if today half of those cities are no longer in the list.

With only a little thought one should be able to see that a lot of facts just need annotating with a date/time stamp, and then they will always remain true even if they are later superseded at a later date:time.

So no 50% of the facts taught 45 years ago were not false, it's just that things have progressed.

Sound as touch, more on the science of sound. The 2 minutes starting at 4:40 describe the sequence of events involved between vibrations in a medium (for humans, the medium is typically air) reaching an ear, and being consciously aware of hearing. Where on the path described is "sound"?

Might there be a type of tree that falls to the ground imperceptibly? According to the OP clearly the answer is no, obviously a falling tree will make a noise, just as it was once obvious to Europeans that all swans were white, (or not). Could there be a problem relying on inductive reasoning when predicting outcomes with certainty (if there is, it might take a philosopher to help us understand the problem, and provide possible means to avoid it).

Here's a, possibly, interesting probability, if you completed school more than 45 years ago, half the facts you were taught have probably since been shown to be not facts after all (source). That probability has been fairly constant for the more than 300 years the Royal Society has been in existence. What, if anything, does this probability tell a person about what he or she "knows".

That idea of facts is a bit false isn't it, because if you were told, "These are the 10 largest cities in the US" in 1962 then that fact is still true even if today half of those cities are no longer in the list.

With only a little thought one should be able to see that a lot of facts just need annotating with a date/time stamp, and then they will always remain true even if they are later superseded at a later date:time.

So no 50% of the facts taught 45 years ago were not false, it's just that things have progressed.

You are quite right, the 10 largest cities is clearly a fact with details that change over time. Are you suggesting that all facts are similarly dependent on context? If so, what might this tell a person about what he or she "knows"? If not, how does a person distinguish between facts that are true only within a particular context and those that are always true?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Here's a, possibly, interesting probability, if you completed school more than 45 years ago, half the facts you were taught have probably since been shown to be not facts after all (source). That probability has been fairly constant for the more than 300 years the Royal Society has been in existence. What, if anything, does this probability tell a person about what he or she "knows".

That is a reasonable premise to make. What it tells you about people is many things. Those that cling to the facts as they were taught them at the time, are not aware that things have moved on, and do not know the latest research findings and up to date facts, and are not interested in finding out, are simply not keeping abreast of modern life.

Life is a constant learning process, we never stop learning something new every day. Anyone that sticks their head in the sand and is not interested in updating themselves with new knowledge is putting themselves at a disadvantage in my opinion.

[...]

You either want to play mind games because you are bored and have nothing better to do, or you decide live in the real world with rest of us. And yes the rest of us have emotions and souls, never ever doubt that. I will debunk philosophy and philosophers until someone convinces me otherwise. I prophesy I will have a long wait! (bad pun).

Before we can convince you otherwise about your debunking, you must first debunk something. If you have debunked anything in this thread, can you please indicate where?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Before we can convince you otherwise about your debunking, you must first debunk something. If you have debunked anything in this thread, can you please indicate where?

14 minutes! What kept you?

Is there a race? If so, you appear to be winning.

Not falling for that old one, of batting the ball back and trying to make someone re-justify their original assertions twice. Sorry, been around too long. I don't have to justify myself, I have already done that, unfortunate for you if you can't see it, or disagree. So come on convince me of your views if you dare.

Surely you can post a link to an earlier post, here's one which appears to me to be an unanswered reply to a post of yours.

What do you want to be convinced of, that your debunking of philosophy and philosophers is lacking, or my views? The two are not necessarily the same.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What do you want to be convinced of, that your debunking of philosophy and philosophers is lacking, or my views? The two are not necessarily the same.

Either would do as a start on your side wouldn't it? But please bear in mind that this is the Science (non-Seti) forum, if you want to be sassy take it over to Politics, OK?

What criteria do you propose to measure whether something is convincing? Are you certain of the answer regarding the hypothetical falling tree?

I note that you have again chosen not to respond to the content of that earlier post.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What do you want to be convinced of, that your debunking of philosophy and philosophers is lacking, or my views? The two are not necessarily the same.

Either would do as a start on your side wouldn't it? But please bear in mind that this is the Science (non-Seti) forum, if you want to be sassy take it over to Politics, OK?

But isn't that where this subject should be, in Politics. And if you really don't think so, then I suggest you look up that 1st our PM has in a subject that many regard as being the politics equivalent of media studies.

They will also therefore produce similar real sounds whether or not there is anyone in the vicinity to hear them and witness it.

I'm not sure they do though... not in the sense of an actual sound. They do produce pressure waves (at least I think that's what they're called) and those need to be translated by an ear or some other "hearing" device to be recognised as sound. I think. Take for example a dog whistle. We would say there is no sound coming out of it, and if we didn't know such things exist, we would throw it away as a useless/broken whistle, probably around the same time as we got bowled over by all the dogs in the neighbourhood. Where was the sound? In their ears!

Getting back to the tree, we could say it "made a sound" when it fell, in the hope that the squirrel in its path wasn't deaf, and so would hear it and have a chance at escaping, or... on the off chance that one of us was wandering around in the forest and might hear its last "words" about clinging to the planet no more no I will not put that weird jacket on... no I won't! :)

I know I have more - but will I have to post it in Bobby's thread, Chris? :)

Sorry... didn't mean to keep you waiting so long for a reply

the real question is why does it matter to you, and why do you want to know this? If it is because you feel sorry for a big fish trapped in a small bowl when it should be in a proper tank, that is different.

None of my fish are in a bowl, nor is their tank too small. I wonder because they watch us when we're pottering about, and not just when it comes to being fed. That they find what we're doing interesting enough to take note of, makes me wonder what they think I'm pottering about in.

Ok, so these entirely new and refreshing ways have achieved precisely what? Cured cancer, poverty, stopped wars, taken us to the stars?

Did you, when you asked me your question? :) I wish I had when I asked you mine, but that's not how things work. Does art do any of those things? Should we do to all artists what you think should be done to all philosophers? :)

ask the 90% of the worlds 7 Billion population why they continue to pursue and worship their Gods. Logical deduction, faith, lemming-itis, or are they all philosophers?

Yes, well, it did occur to me whether the falling tree question was more of a cynical aside about a certain god seeing even a sparrow fall... and then just watching and watching till it went splat, but I won't go into that here.

As regards the question about how many facts are still facts now... the best science teacher I ever had at school made it very clear that everything he would teach us that year, could be proved to be wrong, or very different within our lifetimes, and that what we thought we'd learned from him, he hoped would keep us interested in the subject long enough for us to know if and where he'd been wrong :) He was a fantastic teacher, and I've tried to make use of that lesson in every sphere of life.

And perhaps we should also remember that when the falling tree question was posed, it wasn't this century. Nor the previous one. We know so much more now than then, but then... well that must've been an amazing question to even think of trying to answer

---

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)

And what if a third party, some way off, heard a tree falling down, but couldn't find it so assumes she is imaging things or going mad. (no not you Annie)

Sigh.

This is not a court of law, I am not the defendant in the dock, and you are not the prosecuting Counsel. Nor are you a referee that changes the rules half way through the game. I do not need to propose anything.

Hypothetical trees may by simple definition produce hypothetical sounds. Real trees produce real sounds which are discernible by any human being, with normal hearing abilities, and within audible range. They will also therefore produce similar real sounds whether or not there is anyone in the vicinity to hear them and witness it.

I have defined things according to my personal satisfaction. I have thrown down the gauntlet, and challenged others to disprove what I have said. I am not going to be sidetracked by your attempts to change the rules of the playing field.

I have stated quite simply that I will debunk philosophy and philosophers until someone convinces me otherwise. You have not done that so far, and I see little chance of it happening either. We could always close this thread, and you can start your own one up, under your auspices, with witnesses being sworn in.

Sigh indeed. For a moment I thought this might be an interesting challenge. Instead you appear to want to play a game where only you are permitted to see the rules, and cry foul when another requests a copy. What might have been an interesting challenge is, instead, likely an impossible one.

If, as you say, by definition "a falling tree makes a sound", then you are right, the epistemological question is pointless. If you want to understand why the epistemological question might not be pointless, a first step might be to consider why such a definition may not be universally accepted, a second step might be to consider what you mean by "sound".

You may say "life is a constant learning process", though it seems you are unwilling to expose yourself to learning in this area.

I applaud you, sir, on your well deserved, albeit phyrric, victory.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You may say "life is a constant learning process", though it seems you are unwilling to expose yourself to learning in this area.

Not under your terms of engagement no.

There is no victory here just two people who disagree, and one who is a bad loser.

My terms (which, amounted to a request for you to share your terms) have nothing to do with my assessment about your unwillingness to learn, you ruled out the possibility of learning by saying something was so by definition, you also made the challenge of convincing you of alternatives an impossible one by making disproof a requirement.

You may be right in that it is "just two people who disagree", though I suspect what we disagree about is more fundamental than philosophers, philosophy, trees and sound. If you were to claim that I am surrounded by intangible, invisible, pink unicorns, it would likely be beyond my means to disprove you even if we were in complete agreement on all the terms in the phrase "surrounded by intangible, invisible, pink unicorns". To my mind, expecting anybody to provide disproof when it is unclear that terms are mutually understood is, to say the least, unreasonable. It is in part, for this reason that skeptics, critical thinkers, users of the scientific method and, yes, courts place the supporting evidence burden on the person making an assertion, and not on others to disprove the assertion.

Back to the topic of the OP. If, as you now say "[i]n physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain" (emphasis added), how can there sound if there are no brains to perceive it (which is essentially the scientists response to the tree question noted earlier in the thread)? Or do physiologists and psychologists use an incorrect definition of sound?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

My terms (which, amounted to a request for you to share your terms) have nothing to do with my assessment about your unwillingness to learn, you ruled out the possibility of learning by saying something was so by definition, you also made the challenge of convincing you of alternatives an impossible one by making disproof a requirement.

I said that "Hypothetical trees may by simple definition produce hypothetical sounds". Simple definition in that context means by a reasonable logical deduction. This is just going round in circles! If we carry on like this it will get moved to politics for us, which would be a shame I think.

No, by logical deduction means by logical deduction, by definition means something else entirely. Yes, circles is what we will travel in while you abuse terms as they are commonly understood. BTW, who developed the tools of "logical deduction"?

If you were to claim that I am surrounded by intangible, invisible, pink unicorns, it would likely be beyond my means to disprove you

Being the sort of chap with my feet on the ground I wouldn't make such a silly assertion in the first place, quite apart from the fact that I couldn't prove that something invisible can be seen, unless their droppings are not invisible. Even then pink Unicorns may not have been responsible. But if you were to say you could actually see them I would be a bit worried about you!

courts place the supporting evidence burden on the person making an assertion, and not on others to disprove the assertion

Not always. If I accuse a man of burgling my home, and the man says he was elsewhere at the time. The court would ask me for my evidence for my assertion, and they would also ask the man for his alibi. The jury would then make up their minds which was the more plausible. Then we get into reasonable doubt territory.

The alibi is an assertion (the defense asserts the defendant was elsewhere at the time). The example does not support the "Not always" assertion.

Back to the topic of the OP. If, as you now say "[i]n physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain" (emphasis added), how can there sound if there are no brains to perceive it (which is essentially the scientists response to the tree question noted earlier in the thread)?

I will be honest and say that I copied that from a web page, and I should have put it in quotes. In this case of trees falling we are all assuming that we are talking about human beings hearing them, which as we all know have various levels of brain function. If you were to say if a tree falls can a rock nearby hear it, you would have to prove that a rock can hear, which might prove a tad difficult.

Please re-read the article linked in the OP ("If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"), in this case we are explicitly talking about a situation where there are no human beings hearing the falling tree. If sound requires brains, does the absence of brains result in the absence of sound? Clue, use logical deduction ...

Or do physiologists and psychologists use an incorrect definition of sound?

I wouldn't know, go and ask some! We can all hear noises, but we perceive them differently. I might think that some pop music is utter trash, others might love it.

I have made a statement that I cannot see any point in philosophy or philosophers, so far I have not seen any response that makes me think any differently. What I have seen is asides alluding to talking about rules of engagement, before hostilities commence. If that is the game that some want to play, then yes a similar thread could be started up over in politics. In the meantime I would still be interested to see in anyone can change my mind.

You cannot see the posts about logic made by me and others that you have not addressed? Are you suffering from confirmation bias?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I have made a statement that I cannot see any point in philosophy or philosophers,

Then it is just as well that others do, Mr S, or we might still be transporting slaves to our colonial plantations and crippling the rights of women to the level we used to. Philosophy deconstructs an accepted view of how something is (or is perceived to be) set in stone. That, frees the mind to analyse from a viewpoint that may be very alien or counterintuitive to us at first. Then we reconstruct, and that can mean putting everything back the way it was. The abolition of slavery however, would not have happened without an initial philosophy behind it. Nor would gender parity. If you have ever benefited from a doctor's treatment, then you have benefited from a philosophy that questioned whether disease and affliction were punishments for a sin.

Philosophy is not a static state. The best melts into the background of the progress it led to, as some here have already tried to point out to you in the fields of maths and science. That does not detract from its worth.

Stop looking for a seed to ridicule when the tree it has grown into is towering above your head.

An interesting thread though. Thank you. :-)

edit@anniet:

that must've been an amazing question to even think of trying to answer

And to construct :-)

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

I have made a statement that I cannot see any point in philosophy or philosophers,

Then it is just as well that others do, Mr S, or we might still be transporting slaves to our colonial plantations and crippling the rights of women to the level we used to. Philosophy deconstructs an accepted view of how something is (or is perceived to be) set in stone. That, frees the mind to analyse from a viewpoint that may be very alien or counterintuitive to us at first. Then we reconstruct, and that can mean putting everything back the way it was. The abolition of slavery however, would not have happened without an initial philosophy behind it. Nor would gender parity. If you have ever benefited from a doctor's treatment, then you have benefited from a philosophy that questioned whether disease and affliction were punishments for a sin.

Philosophy is not a static state. The best melts into the background of the progress it led to, as some here have already tried to point out to you in the fields of maths and science. That does not detract from its worth.

Stop looking for a seed to ridicule when the tree it has grown into is towering above your head.

An interesting thread though. Thank you. :-)

edit@anniet:

that must've been an amazing question to even think of trying to answer

And to construct :-)

+1

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Here is a graph of field of science.

For some reason I like to think that the field noted as ? is philosophy.

Here is a graph of field of science.

For some reason I like to think that the field noted as ? is philosophy.

As others have stated and I posted here some years ago, mathematics and science most definitely arose from philosophy. Thank Euclid for putting it on solid ground to silence the sophists.

Luckily, Chris is on solid ground ... solid for 3500-500 BCE.

No, by logical deduction means by logical deduction, by definition means something else entirely

No it doesn't, that is rubbish! You are just playing with words!

definition

the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:

deduction

Logic.

a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

Indeed it was rubbish for me to simply say that these things are different without providing evidence demonstrating that difference. My apologies.

The alibi is an assertion?

Further reading

Alibis

From the link provided:

Statutes or court rules commonly require that to assert alibi as a defense, a defendant must notify the prosecution in advance of trial and furnish the names of witnesses the defendant intends to use to support the alibi

In other words, an alibi is an assertion and courts require the defendant to support the assertion. How is this any different to what I said in earlier posts, that "courts place the supporting evidence burden on the person making an assertion, and not on others to disprove the assertion", and "[t]he alibi is an assertion (the defense asserts the defendant was elsewhere at the time)"? Or are you conceding that your example for "not always" did support your claim?

Are you suffering from confirmation bias?

Oh dear very droll. I am simply standing by my beliefs,

You are doing more than that, "so far I have not seen any response that makes me think any differently", to have not seen the posts on logic may be indicative of confirmation bias, to have seen the posts on logic and still reach the conclusion that "I cannot see any point in philosophy" is a declaration of willful ignorance. I was trying to be charitable, though please do feel free to remove any doubt.

and my viewpoints and opinions are as valid as anyone elses. Sorry if you don't like that.

Not so, you are as free as anyone else to voice your viewpoints and opinions on these boards, and I have no argument with that. That there has yet to be an independent assessment of the validity ("the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency") of any viewpoints and opinions voiced here, does not make them all equally valid. For all I know, your views and opinions are more valid than everyone else's.

Apologies for the recent RFI my filter is on the blink, I'll deal with that later.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So Bobby, lets put you in the dock for a change. If nobody was around did that tree make a sound or not.

Q1. Yes or no?

Valid Question.

Q2. Why?

Valid Question

Q3. Who gives a damn anyway?

Killed the thread.

It's been an interesting thread with some interesting posts. Unfortunately, Q3 has killed the thread. For those who feel philosophical & ask as to why, think carefully before it's asked.

At the risk of seeing this thread moved somewhere else, I will reply one last time.

I said that

Hypothetical trees may by simple definition produce hypothetical sounds. Real trees produce real sounds

That atatement in the context that it was made, has the word definition meaning the same as logical deduction. You seem to have gone to some trouble to pull that apart word for word to prove that technically, definition and deduction mean similar but different things. Why? I would suggest that most everyone else quite happily got the gist of what I was saying.

Ask everyone then. In the context of a thread on Philosophy, the meanings of by definition and by logical deduction are distinct, the former is a premise, the latter is a conclusion leading from a set of premises, that you believe that there was some other context for your post is fine, I was not aware of that alternative context. And statement begins with an s in UK and US English.

It would have been more constructive to have discussed the tree which is one of the subjects of this thread.

Tried that, you chose not to respond to those posts.

Or are you conceding that your example for "not always" did support your claim?

Not always in that context meant the the burden of proof was on both sides, i.e. the accuser has to provide evidence that the accused is guilty, the accused has also to provide evidence that they are innocent.

In US criminal courts there is still the presumption of innocence. so the accused does not have to do anything, I'm not sure whether the presumption exists in the UK anymore. Even without the presumption which "side" was indicated in the sentence "courts place the supporting evidence burden on the person making an assertion, and not on others to disprove the assertion"? You might chose argue that the counter assertion of alibi disproves the initial assertion, I've yet to see you try, though before you do, you might wish to review what "disproof" means in the context of Philosophy.

is a declaration of willful ignorance

Sorry I don't have a patch and a telescope, that won't wash. And wilful has one l.

In UK English perhaps (though I count two in your spelling of the word), in US English there are three ls in willful.

The point that you seem to miss Bobby is that I have no interest in trying to change your mind about anything that you may think. Whatever it is you are welcome to it, and I can simply choose to agree or disagree. Some people use the tactic of "I'm having trouble understanding why I can't convince you that you are wrong and I am right". And worry it like a terrier with a bone. Nope we don't play those games.

But having made statements of my own, I am interested to see if anyone can come up with anything that might make me change MY mind. You say that in your opinion you have done that by discussing logic and grammar. That might be to your satisfaction, but it isn't to mine, and I am the one that needs to be convinced. But I appreciate you trying.

Logic does not convince you of the usefulness of philosophy? I suppose I should not be surprised. To the best of my knowledge, I have not said a thing about grammar; while we have side-stepped into the related field of semantics, the side-step did not require this thread.

Lets for the umpteenth time go back to square one. If this damn tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it, does it make a sound?

It is quite simple to cut down a tree, in a forest or in the middle of a field, and observe the outcome. It will most likely go whoosh rustle rustle and lay on the ground. We can carry out that experiment many times and get similar results, as in one tree might go rustle whoosh rustle etc. It would therefore be reasonable to believe that any tree falling down, whether by old age, storm damage, or human interaction would make similar sounds.

The fact that nobody was around to witness the act of its falling, would not make any practicable difference. We could walk through a forest of fallen trees and reasonably assume that in their time they had all made a noise of some sort. The only extra might be that in forestry terms, you have "leaners" and "hangers" that might only have fallen a few feet before becoming entangled. But again it is likely that they would have made some sound.

So Bobby, lets put you in the dock for a change. If nobody was around did that tree make a sound or not.

Q1. Yes or no?
Q2. Why?
Q3. Who gives a damn anyway?

Hopefully we might get a direct answer to a direct question, without sidestepping and wanting to define what sound is beforehand. Down to you.

A1. Don't know.
A2. No direct evidence.
A3. Quite (though not completely) sure I do; I don't know whether anybody else does.

Before you reply, please take a moment to think about what I might mean by "know", in the context of this thread, the word might not have the meaning you currently think it does.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Hearing trees falling in a forest?
I have even problem to see the forest because of the trees.