Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (test

Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (testimonial) and legal (incentive) scrutiny.

If a tree falls in the woods, given the absence of evidence of the silence of trees falling in the woods, and someone claims the falling tree made no sound, we are left with whether trees can in fact make no sound, the individual errs, the individual is engaging in soft deceit by sophistry, or the individual is engaging in hard deceit to justify some subsequent claim by deduction, inference or abduction – most likely conflation or inflation or all of the above.

in other words the framing implied by question produces a false dichotomy which is, almost universally, how the sophomoric questions are positioned in quote ‘ philosophy ‘, and second only to abuses of grammar by the ambiguity of the copula (is,are, was, were, being, been).

😉

Reply addressees: @Gyeff0 @MarlinDBJr