"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"
Debate Rounds (5)
I will attempt to argue that when a tree falls in the forest it will emit a sound, regardless of the fact that no one is around to hear it.
The first round is acceptance, btw.
Prepare to be stumped....get it? stump? tree falls in the woods? lmao ahhhh whatever
Let's do it! Present your argument.
When a tree falls in the forest it will, in fact, make a sound. If no one is around to hear this event, the sound will still occur.
First, what exactly is sound? It's nothing more than a chain reaction. The human race has discovered something called sound waves, which are created at the slightest vibration of an object (take vocal cords, for example.) When this happens, the waves travel through the air and cause the air molecules to vibrate. The vibrating air molecules make it to someones ear, and causes their eardrum to vibrate. The brain recognizes this to be a sound.
Regardless of this sensory organ being there to perceive the stimuli, the stimuli still exists.
I am not denying that the tree falling in the woods will produce a physical soundwave. However, the argument I am trying to present is that whether or not the tree falls, a "sound" will not be produced because in order for it to be called a "sound" there must be some animal or being there to hear the sound.
As defined by Webster, the word sound is "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium". Therefore in order for a "sound" to exist there are two conditions that must be met:
1) There must be a vibration transmitted through the air or medium. Like you said, a soundwave must be produced. Hypothetically, let's say the tree DOES make a noise when it falls, then you would have met the first condition.
2) The stimulation of the organs of hearing must occur; a sensation must be perceived. However, according to the nature of the question "If a tree falls in the woods, and NO ONE IS AROUND TO HEAR IT, does it make a sound?", this tells us that there is no sensory organ in the general area to hear the sound. Thus, the second condition is NOT met and the "sound" does not occur.
The big debate surrounding this question is not involved in the actually occurrence of the tree falling in the woods, but rather the wordplay in the question. It's very similar to asking if the sun is rising, and a blind person is sitting in front of it, can he see it? If he can't see it, how can he prove that it truly exists? He relies on the sensory organ to make this determination.
ashtronomy forfeited this round.
thegravenig forfeited this round.
What you're arguing seems to be on a different spectrum. While I am relying on the physical nature of a sound, you are relying on interpretation. You stated, "a 'sound' will not be produced because in order for it to be a 'sound' there must be some animal or being there to hear the sound." This does not make sense. When you are stimulating other organs of the body, a response doesn't necessarily have to occur in order for it to exist. Now, I know this example is a little unconventional, but consider the human orgasm. Whether the orgasm occurs or not, the stimulation is still occurring. Although the intended response of an orgasm may not be reached, there is a physical stimuli that still exists. So, in this case, although a sound may not be heard by the sensory organ, it does not mean that the actual sound wave is not present.
You outlined the basis of your argument from Webster's definition of the word "sound." Who's to say that Webster's definition properly represents what a sound truly is? Anyone can look up a word in a dictionary and utilize one of its several meanings to support their argument.
When you refer to a blind man's inability to prove if his surroundings exist, you are relying on his perception of a reality. This is a subjective argument that can be used in any debate. How can anyone trust their senses? While this may be true, one must come to the conclusion that our world runs on empirical evidence supported by subjective judgments. Therefore, in order to make any decisions regarding an objective world, we must ultimately rely on these subjective views. For example, how did scientific laws come into general acceptance? People created scientific experiments and formulated our basic principles (objective) from our observations (subjective.)
Your argument stems from the idea of probability. Based upon your experience and common sense, you have learned that an object falling will produce a sound when it comes into contact with another object. Is the predicted and probable outcome always correct? Of course not.
Once again, my reasoning is that because there is no way to perceive the tree falling in the woods, we cannot assume that a sound was ever made. Hypothetically if a soundwave was produced, by definition a "sound" is something that must be perceived through some sort of sensory organ, whether it be by artificial or natural means. No perception is taking place, therefore what we consider to be a "sound" cannot exist.
As for your critique of my use of Webster's definition of the word "sound", of course there is difficulty in defining any word accurately. Look at Webster's definition of the word "love" and you will come across a vague and general meaning of the word. The idea of the definition is to provide a basis that all parties can agree with. In the case of "sound", I am simply providing two generally accepted conditions of a sound: (1) vibration transmitted through air or medium and (2) stimulation of the organs of hearing.
You say that probability is not a valid argument, but it accurate measures the predicted outcome of nearly any incident. Of course you can say that there are exceptions to every event. How can one argue this? However, if you pick up an object and drop it, unless the laws of physics fall apart, the object will hit the ground with a force every time. Can you give me an event where an object wouldn't hit the ground? No, because these are well predicted outcomes, with nearly no exceptions involved. Much like the tree falling in the woods, according to your argument we can never prove that a sound exists because there is no sensory organ to perceive it, but based on the likeliness of all events, it will fall and produce a sound. Witnesses do not have to present in order for an event to occur. Many "sounds" are occurring outside our realm of hearing. Does this mean that they do not exist? No, they are only beyond the reach of our sensory organ. Therefore, sensory perception does not imply existence. Whether you believe in an event happening or not, it will occur.
As for your definition, I never agreed that this was acceptable. How can you distinguish words like sound, noise, etc.? You are merely fitting the general definition to your argument. Meanings of words are very abstract. Even when languages are involved, the same word can possess different meanings. So for you to base your entire argument on the meaning of the word "sound" does not seem very concrete.
Your reasoning makes sense regarding probability, but I am here to distinguish between likeliness and certainty. Other than probability, you have no general proof that the tree falling in the woods will produce a sound. In this case, perception is everything to proving the existence of the sound. Without perception, you are basing the existence of a sound solely on tendencies. You provide plenty of reasoning as to why it is LIKELY that the tree made a sound, but no real evidence.
Of course the meaning of the word "sound" is a completely viable argument. The nature of this question lies in the meaning of the words. To understand what the question is asking and how to answer it, you must understand the words within the question. To answer if a sound has occurred you must define what a sound is. Until that definition has been confirmed by both of us, you and I could be debating two entirely different ideas. This question "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?" has less to do with physics and more to do with the meaning of the words in the question.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.