= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JohnD comments on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (456)
How could you endorse the first part without endorsing the second part? Doesn't the first part already include the second part?
After all, it says "within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard". What could that mean if not "sufficient to generate the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations"?
This is the part I endorse.
"Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas."
It does not require the presence of a listener. Nor need it be in a certain range of frequencies. (That would just be a sound you cannot hear.)
What I am saying is, when Barry replies as he does, why don't we just say, "You are confused about what is and is not sound. Go ask the physicists, 'What is sound?' and then we can continue this conversation, or if you don't want to bother, you can take my word for it."
When physicists have a consensus view of a phenomenon, we shouldn't argue over definitions. We should use their definitions, provisionally, of course.
No one thinks it makes sense to argue over what is or is not an atom. I don't see why 'sound' should be in a different category.