How to Prove Locke, Berkeley, and Hume Wrong

In my PHI 100 class we are currently sutdying Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. One example our professor mentioned was this: if a tree fell on the ground and no one was there to see/hear it, would it make a sound? He said that these three would argue that there would be no sound. How do you correctly prove this wrong?

[lastchance]

You can't. Quantam Mechanics says that if an event is not observed, no one can know whether or not it really exists.

[kbfc]

Well, this question is pretty silly. I don't agree that Hume would say there was no sound. He wouldn't say anything definite like that. For Berkeley, the question is sorta nonsensical. Since, for him, basically everything exists in the mind as provided by God, the notion of an event that doesn't get experienced is contradictory. I guess the 'proof' you'd want against his position could be easily summed up as, "Berkeley is full of [censored] on everything, so why should this be any different?"

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this question is pretty silly. I don't agree that Hume would say there was no sound. He wouldn't say anything definite like that. For Berkeley, the question is sorta nonsensical. Since, for him, basically everything exists in the mind as provided by God, the notion of an event that doesn't get experienced is contradictory. I guess the 'proof' you'd want against his position could be easily summed up as, "Berkeley is full of [censored] on everything, so why should this be any different?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree - Hume would say that. He says that there are relations of ideas and matters of fact, and ideas are only memories. Matters of fact are impressions or direct sense experiences; thus, if someone does not experience the sound of the tree falling, he could not say it was fact that it made sound.

I agree that this is silly, but just want to prove it wrong philisophically.

[kbfc]

I think our disagreement is due to the unclear definition of 'sound.' I'm taking it as just an example of 'some unexperienced event.' That said, I agree with your analysis of Hume for positive statements, but not for negative ones, such as "the tree made NO sound." I don't find Hume's philosophy to include any provisions that would explicitly deny the possibility of something unexperienced (if we can even narrow down what that means).

Just because he cannot say for a fact that it made a sound, that doesn't mean he can say for a fact that it did not.

[bearly]

hi, well, when you throw physics, and philosophy (the historical stuff) and modern metaphysics (philosophy of mind---most places) and linguistics/semiotics together in a blender, you get quite an unpleasant smoothie. from a strictly philosopical (conceptual analysis, etc.) perspective, it would seem the 'lesson' of the gordian knot would be helpful. after all it (the op question) is kind of a goofy thing to play w/, but like all linguistic ladders, it can be thrown away as you climb higher or in a different direction. debt here to the gospel according to st. wittgenstein. but, seriously, i doubt anyone doing philosophy, as opposed to studying the history of the subject, would give this much time.................b

[Robk]

the combination of your name and the subject of this thread is hilarious to me.

[bearly]

hi. oh, i appreciate the fact that all of us must go thru 'basic training'---no attempt on my part to minimize that. i guess we all have our 'work', and my way of helping is to keep things moving and fresh. i wish someone would have been there to do it for me in those musty old dens of the oxford-educated 'dons'..................b

It would make a sound. Sound is physical. It is molecules pushing against other molecules. Theoretically, you should be able to walk into the forest after the fact with very sensitive instruments and tell which sounds have been made and where they came from.

Hi guys,

I'm a long time lurker on here but this is my first post. I had to say something as I know a little about this stuff.

Firstly to define how the "sound" would be made:
The vibrations in the air made by the tree falling cause the ear drum to vibrate, which passes a signal to the brain making the sound in the head of the listener.

For a "sound" to be "heard" there needs to be an ear and a brain to hear it. Sounds only exist inside the head of the listener, the sound is not "out there" in the external world.

So in my opinion the answer is no. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound.

I guess the ultimate answer to this is "THERE IS NO TREE" but thats another story.