The Instigator
PolitelyDisagreeable
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
jakeG
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
PolitelyDisagreeable
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 27031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

PolitelyDisagreeable

Con

I believe that if there is nobody (and nothing) around to hear a tree fall in the forest, then we cannot know for sure if it makes a sound, in a similar way that a cat in a box, while unobserved, is both alive ad dead, according to Schrodinger.
jakeG

Pro

The question asked was: If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? You are against this. This means that if a tree falls ect..... it doesn't make a sound. Both of your reasons are showing uncertainty (either we don't know or it can be both) whereas your claim was certainty (it doesn't make a sound) thus you are not being the con. You are right that "we cannot know for sure" if the tree makes a sound but this doesn't mean that we can know for sure that it doesn't . However, there is reason to assume that the tree does make a sound since we know that when people are around trees, they make sounds when they fall, and there is no reason to think that vicinity of people change the way sound works. In the case with Schrödinger and his cat, the tree would make a sound and not make a sound, whereas you only claim that the tree does not make a sound. By the way why did you ask me to be in your debate?
Debate Round No. 1
PolitelyDisagreeable

Con

The reason I am con is because there is no middle ground between pro and con, and I wanted to phrase the title like the well-known question of a tree falling in the forest. My argument was stated in my first post. When you said "You are right that 'we cannot know for sure'" I believe you consented to my argument?

I invited you to this argument to help you get enough debates to vote. =)
jakeG

Pro

Im sorry but i did not consent to your argument. We live in a world where we can't really know if anything is true. For all I know no one really exists and I am just hallucinating everything Now we all know that is ridiculous and we move on. The same is true for the tree. We don't really know if it makes a sound just like I don't really know you exist, but that's not saying much. And the fact that no one is there to hear it is not a contribution at all to the unknown. When I said "we don't really know for sure" i meant that we can't know anything for sure, but since we are 99.99% sure (like in the case with the tree) we assume it happens.
Debate Round No. 2
PolitelyDisagreeable

Con

You could also say that because the tree causes vibrations in the air and on the ground as it moves to fall, it must make a sound.
jakeG

Pro

So i guess we agree that it makes a sound. Awesome.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
By the way, the definition of sound given by webster: "a particular auditory impression" requires not only the vibrations in the air, but also an ear to interpret these vibrations as sound. So the only way for a tree to make a sound in a forest if there are no humans around is if there is another animal with a sense of hearing to interpret the vibrations the tree makes as sound.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
PolitelyDisagreeablejakeGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The only person to really make an argument was Con on his first post. Other than that neither really debated and simply posited semantic disagreements. Con ended up offering a possible argument to Pro, which Pro in turn incorrectly took as a concession. I don't really want to give anyone full points for this one, but Con did indeed win, so I will just give him points for spelling and grammar