4 ms·

The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions. I do not think anyo

The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions. I do not think anyone seriously believes it. If they did, you'd soon be able to convince them that the theory is false. If you ever encounter someone proposing that theory, they're liable to be anticipating-as-if a tree falling in a deserted forest DOES generate pressure waves, and know perfectly well what the result of any of your proposed expirements will be. They'll do fast footwork to make up excuses as to why your suggested expirements are invalid or miss the point. http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/ Taboo'ing is especially helpful when you find yourself arguing over definitions, and want to get at the heart of the difference in actual models of the world, rather than just the difference in labels. If there is any actual disagreement on expectations.

gabemart 13y ago
>The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions I do not believe that the theory "A completely unobserved and unrecorded tree does not generate pressure waves in the air when it falls" is falsifiable. How would you falsify it? I do agree that no-one seriously believes it.
- spindritf 13y ago
  I don't think anything intelligent can be said about a "completely unobserved and unrecorded tree." We do not know an object that has the qualities of being unobserved and we can never know, because then it wouldn't be unobserved any more. That's the idealist argument against materialism.
- emhs 13y ago
  This is where the Less Wrong post on Occam's Razor [1] comes in handy. It helps make clear how to respond to someone who argues that backward perspective. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/

gabemart 13y ago

>The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions I do not believe that the theory "A completely unobserved and unrecorded tree does not generate pressure waves in the air when it falls" is falsifiable. How would you falsify it? I do agree that no-one seriously believes it.

spindritf 13y ago
I don't think anything intelligent can be said about a "completely unobserved and unrecorded tree." We do not know an object that has the qualities of being unobserved and we can never know, because then it wouldn't be unobserved any more. That's the idealist argument against materialism.
emhs 13y ago
This is where the Less Wrong post on Occam's Razor [1] comes in handy. It helps make clear how to respond to someone who argues that backward perspective. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/