Dumb Question About Trees Falling in a Fores

What total and utter rubbish!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are the one who is willing to believe in things not perceived and call it science.

edit: self-evident from the fact you missed the point Ophiolite was making.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dont start that shit! It's moronic.
It's not a belief if something has been observed time and time again to be true and neven been observed to be untrue, then procede to extrapolating that it will therefor always occur given the same variables. It is the essence of science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a convenience to extrapolate, not a given.

Just as one assumes that all possible variables are constant, but can never be 100% certain.

That is what standard deviation is for.

Scientific conclusions are not absolute, they cover probabilities and confidence intervals.

 

Dont patronize me, nothing is 100% percent certain(science doesn't claim that), but when something is so close to 100% certain of occuring the closest discription you can come up with is 'it will occur!'.
I've noticed you've moved away from your other arguement onto this equally feeble one, I wonder why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're lost again. And you brought up the variables.

No I am just trying to clarify that in science, we take certain things for granted, but ultimately, the question of the tree and sound is an analogy.

And as an analogy, one does not believe in a sound one has not heard.
Not without proof of perception.

Hence the importance of the definition and what you define as the existence of a phenomena.

e.g. your conclusion that the tree makes a sound is based on previous knowledge of the sound waves or previous knowledge of perception of a tree falling or previous knowledge or perception of sound.

Without any of these pre-defined constructs, what is the basis of your conclusion?

 

Im not lost, you were lost ages ago, that's why you have now resorted to abandoning your initial stance and arguing the insignificant and impertinant.

 

Like I said:

It's hard to have a scientific discussion with someone who has no clear knowledge of the importance of epistemology and ontology.

Good night.

 

holy mary mother of god ! ! isn't this what i have been saying all along?

 

No! and you know it's not!

 

Like I said you are talking out of your butt!

Good night.

 

i believe it is.

 

Whoops.
Pretty bad mistake there.
Ever heard of the problem of induction? Hume? Popper?
Science is based on falsifiability. Not induction.
Sorry to bust your bubble.

Well. This isn't exactly science here, is it?
It's more of a logical conundrum and/or semantic issue.


Here's the syllogism on the logical side of things:

A tree fell in the woods.
Trees falling in woods make noise.
Therefore the tree falling in the woods made noise.

Of course, step 2 there is a bit of induction based on past experience with the sound of trees falling in woods....


On the semantic side:
It all depends on definition of sound.
I.e. is sound the waveform created by the falling of the tree (did you know that the sun rings like a bell?)
Or is sound the interpretation of that waveform by a conscious mind?

 

Yes because you are a back tracking moron and incapable of logical perception.

 

does the sun emit light?

 

Oh fuck off you gay fuck!

 

My.
Having a bad day, wee one?

 

i think so.
he's definitely getting his bowels in an uproar.

 

Yeah Im fed up with banging my head up against the wall.

There was nothing wrong with that statement, just your faggy misinterpretation of it.

Bye.

 

That was my point. Hence the ontological epistemology.

You're better at explaining this stuff.

edit: plus, its fun to bait planck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!