Thread: If a tree falls in the forest..you're gonna hate this one.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Beacause otherwise it'd be called a lie.....

And how do you define each? What is the difference?

Originally Posted by gregs656

There are two theories of truth, the correspondence theory and the coherence theory.

The correspondence theory would suggest that truth is the correspondence between beliefs and reality. Propositions are true if they accurately correspond to reality.

The coherence theory believes propositions are true if they are mutually consistent and they are supported by or consistent with all available evidence. That is, they cohere with each other and all other evidence.

Philosophy is the personal search for truth by rational means. Something can be true for me, and fit my reality, but not fit yours.

Your final statement assumes relativism, which not every one buys into. I, fore example, don't.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye5

"admitting you cannot do something is not arrogant"... Agreed, but insisting that a tree falling does not make noise simply because a human is not there to hear is.

I guess I should revise by statement to say that I suspend judgment, unless it can be proven one way or the other. I don't think it's so much saying that the tree doesn't make noise if there is no human to hear it - it could be a camera or an animal or a detector of any type. And it's not that the tree makes no noise, it's that you can't PROVE that it makes any noise. To me, it is not to say that reality is based around humans so much as that proof is based around observables. And it's not this question that I find interesting, it's the implications about what we can "know" and what can be "proved."

To call it human arrogance is the same as getting tied up in the idea of what is "sound" or "a noise" - you're missing the spirit of the question.

I'd say, based on prior information related to having observed several trees falling in a forest in the past, that yes, it indeed does make a noise, ceteris paribus. How much noise it makes is, in my experience, related to the density of the forest in question, and the height, circumference at chest height, and canopy cover of the tree in question.

Just because we do not directly observe something does not mean it does not happen. However, whether it matters to us is another question altogether.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I'd say, based on prior information related to having observed several trees falling in a forest in the past, that yes, it indeed does make a noise, ceteris paribus. How much noise it makes is, in my experience, related to the density of the forest in question, and the height, circumference at chest height, and canopy cover of the tree in question.

Just because we do not directly observe something does not mean it does not happen. However, whether it matters to us is another question altogether.

James.

How many is several? How many is enough? A statement can be true 99 times, but if it is false just once, it is still a false statement.

You are talking to a statistician Holli - the only thing that matters to me are averages. On average, falling trees make noise. Whether you are there to hear it or not is irrelevant. If the direct observation of phenomena were a prerequisite for an event to occur, we would never be able to allocate non-zero probabilities to future events, for example, but we clearly do and can.

James.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Your final statement assumes relativism, which not every one buys into. I, fore example, don't.

Either way, there are two theories of truth that do not require proof to form their definition, which I think is what you asked for. Whether you believe those truths are absolute or relative is neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

On average, falling trees make noise. Whether you are there to hear it or not is irrelevant.

I think this is the point I made earlier James, and I think it is a fair argument.

[QUOTE= If a married man makes a decision while alone in a forest, is the decision still wrong?[/QUOTE]

If my wife doesn't know about the $350 razor I just bought, did I really buy it? Well, if I don't tell her, it didn't happen and life is good. If she finds the bill ......Oh boy, is there sound!

Originally Posted by gregs656

I think this is the point I made earlier James, and I think it is a fair argument.

Is it? Sorry Greg, I did not read the entire thread.

If we are talking a one-off, I am with you all the way Holli - it is either true or false. But if 99 falling trees make a noise, and one does not, all that tells me is that 99% of trees make noise when they fall, on average. The non-noisy tree does not invalidate the 99 noisy ones. But that is the whole point of information - the more you get, the better informed you are. Who would base an entire idea upon a single observation, and state it as truth? It's madness I tells ya! Madness!!!!!

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Is it? Sorry Greg, I did not read the entire thread.

If we are talking a one-off, I am with you all the way Holli - it is either true or false. But if 99 falling trees make a noise, and one does not, all that tells me is that 99% of trees make noise when they fall, on average. The non-noisy tree does not invalidate the 99 noisy ones. But that is the whole point of information - the more you get, the better informed you are. Who would base an entire idea upon a single observation, and state it as truth? It's madness I tells ya! Madness!!!!!

James.

I think the fact two people made the same point is a good thing.

I agree with you, you can either work on the principle that trees falling make noise because all the evidence suggests this, or you can try and produce evidence to the contrary.

I think you can also accept that it is the truth that the noise of every tree falling does not enter into your reality, how ever, based on your experience, you can hypothesize they make a noise too.

Your last point james, about basing an idea on one observation is kinda the crux of this debate. As you will never be able to observe a tree falling down and not be there at the same time, you're effectively basing an idea on no observations. This is where the idea of a running hypothesis is important, you can base an idea on your truth, and work with it until you gain evidence to the contrary. There is no wrong answer, in order to gain that evidence, you would have to be there and not be there at the same time.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

You are talking to a statistician Holli - the only thing that matters to me are averages. On average, falling trees make noise. Whether you are there to hear it or not is irrelevant. If the direct observation of phenomena were a prerequisite for an event to occur, we would never be able to allocate non-zero probabilities to future events, for example, but we clearly do and can.

James.

I know only a little about stats, so please, James, correct me when I make a mistake here.

You could say that, on average, falling trees which have been observed make noise. (For now, lets not say anything about unobserved trees - we are trying to reach a conclusion about them, so we should not make statements about them.) Right off the bat, it seems to me that this statement allows for the possibility, though perhaps with an extremely small probability, that a falling tree that is observed could make no noise. That is to say, stating that the average observed falling tree does make noise does not rule out the possibility of an observed falling tree not making any noise. It then seems to me that, the statement that the average falling tree which is observed is not sufficient to prove that all observed falling trees will wake a noise - let alone unobserved falling trees.

How did I do?