Is a failure to properly problem solve a sign of lack of understanding or pride (see add details for real ?)?

Question

Regarding "When a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it does it still make a noise?"

Something I realized is that the real reason why this question has gone on answered for so long is that the question itself is poorly defined. Noise can mean many things. It can mean what someone hears or or can mean the vibration itself created when the tree hits the ground. So we really don't know what the questioner is trying to find out when they ask this question. The solution to this unsolved problem- therefore is to simply admit that you don't understand the question and ask the questioner to define what they mean by noise. After you find out what they mean by noise you now have enough information to answer the question.

What I'm trying to find out is- is the real reason why this problem has gone unsolved for so long out of lack of understanding of how to solve this problem, or because people are too proud to admit they don't understand the question?

This query is about nature of humanity. People keep answering the question without understanding what the question is. So if you say yes the tree makes a noise- the response is- it can't because there is no one to hear it.

If you say no- because there is no one to hear it- the response is- yes it does because the tree made a noise when it hit the ground.

When you know something the other person doesn't- that gives you power over them. So this philosophical question is a power play. No matter what the person says be it yes or no- due to the question being so poorly defined - that leaves you free to tell them they're wrong and in doing so - lord over that person.

The other way to look at this is that the term "noise" is poorly defined and has several meanings, so perhaps the real reason why this question has created such a condundrum is out of a lack of understanding of what is really being asked and is a commment on the vagueness of conversation. Your thoughts?

Answer 1

You've simplified too much here.
I don't think people have failed to define "noise" or "sound" as I've always heard it. I think it is more that they are at odds about whether it is the vibration or the receiving of the vibration that constitutes "sound".
"Noise" by this reasoning is not "many things" but one or the other. So, which is it? Is it the vibration or the receiving of the vibration that is the "noise"?

Answer 2

I didn't realize this question had gone unanswered. I thought it was a slam-dunk--Duh! Of course it does.

If the tree makes no noise if there is no one to hear it, then we should turn off all of our seismic monitoring devices so the undersea earthquakes will stop.

I always thought this particular question to be merely a demonstration of the profound arrogance of people.

Answer 3

The answer is yes it still makes noise...

Answer 4

good question and good answer from your side. i have been asked that question many times and i responded by saying "what is the absolute truth? but your theory is good,