If no one is around to hear a sound is it one?

In this debate, I as Pro will defend the thesis that something can make a sound even if there is no casual observer to record or hear it. My opponent will defend the opposite, namely that either there is no way to verify such phenomenon or that the existence of sound is somehow dependent on there being an observer.


===Defintions===


Sound: Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.[1]

To make a sound means that something happens or does something which produces sufficient conditions for sound to be produced.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My opponent has made two subtly different arguments in defense of his point. First he argues that an observer has a direct effect on the actual existence of a sound. Second, he argues that there is no way to prove that a sound exists without an observer. In effect, the first argument rests on the ontology of sound while the second rests on the epistemology of knowing if there is sound. Both arguments however are quite flawed and I'll point out why.


===Ontological argument===


Is there an existential relationship between an observer and sound? I would think not seeing as the definition of sound for this debate was defined in wholly objective terms. Sound was defined as vibrations of certain frequencies (if my opponent had a problem with this definition he certainly didn't mention it and certainly didn't forward an alternative definition). There is no reason to think that these types of frequencies sprang into existence at the same time that sentient life did just as there is no reason to think that trees or clouds or the universe itself didn't exist until we did. To argue that these frequencies did is surely to make a special pleasing fallacy[1]. Why is it only frequencies between the range of 20 and 20,000 hertz that did not exist until we did and not everything else in existence? The fact is that all of our scientific models of how the world works point in exactly the opposite direction.


Secondly, in order to defend this view, some sort of causal relationship would also have to be proved in order to explain why the existence of sound is predicated on the existence of perception. But my opponent offers no such relationship in his argument. Therefore we can't accept that he has fulfilled his burden of evidence in this debate.


===Epistemological argument===


My opponent's second argument is that there is no way to verify that the sound is actually existent or real. The problem with my opponent's argument is that he assumes that physical perception is the only way to prove the existence of sound. He ignores totally the fact that we can epistemically prove existence by use of principle. For instance, we know that all lions are mammals even though we don't consciously perceive every single lion in existence. We just have to perceive enough to derive a general principle to use. Likewise in regards to sound, we know that sound can exist even when we don't perceive it because we've perceived enough instances of sound to derive general principles in regards to what makes it.


===Source===


[1] http://www.nizkor.org...

===Definitions===


In this last round my opponent has decided to simply provide a different definition of what sound is. However, not only has he waited until the last round to provide this definition, but he has yet to provide sound reasoning as to (A) why it should be accepted over the definition which I provided in R1 and (B) why he waited until the last round to provide it in the first place. Wouldn't either R1 or the round after I provided my own definition be a good time to provide his own definition. At best my opponent has simply provided an alternative definition. But since I not only provided my own definition first and my opponent went a full round without questioning it, I argue that my own definition should be recognized over my opponent's.


===Pro's argument===


(A) Ontology


Con has attempted to uphold his ontology point by drawing upon his new definition provided. Therefore the refutation is vulnerable to the fact that my opponent has not provided any reason to accept his definition coupled with the fact that he waited until the last round to provide it (after I had already provided a definition). My opponent has also merged the epistemology argument into his ontology argument. Therefore my opponent's epistemology argument also fails for the same reason.


*Note that my opponent has also used Wiki answers as a source.*


===Conclusion===


Unfortunately, this debate has ended as a mere definition argument. In his R2 my opponent argued two positions; that we cannot know the existence of sound without perception and also that its existence is itself predicated on perception by sentience. After I refuted both of these positions Con attempted to come back by changing the definition of what sound actually is. But as I showed above, I provided my own definition first and my opponent waited a full round to challenge it. And even when he challenged my definition he didn't forward any argument for why it was superior to my own. For these reasons, my opponent has not sufficiently upheld his position. Vote Pro.