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

Originally Posted by gregs656

Philosophy is not the search for proof. It's the search for truth.

It's not possible to prove anything, but I can offer you my truth.

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

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

"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.

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 holli4pirating

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

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.