The importance of language

Recently in my methodology class we had a "discussion" about the theory of knowledge. Discussion is in quotations because it wasn't a discussion so much as it was one Master's students steam rolling all of us undergrads because she was under the impression that she was so much more knowledgeable. If she had something valuable to teach from her experience, I'd listen. But she doesn't. Among many things we talked about was the political nature of knowledge, the theory or math and the existence of reality. Without the pit bull of a Master's student it could have been a very interesting conversation.

Now, I cannot deny my training. I am a scientist. I am what I would like to term a positive-realist and that is how I view the world. It doesn't make it wrong, it's just one way of looking things. When I see a Tim Hortons cup, I see a paper cup for holding a hot beverage. I don't associate things with it. Not to the pit bull. The cup was representative of our collective experience as a society and blah blah blah... it was her way or the highway. God forbid she ever go into teaching. What if I don't see it that way?? Am I not entitled to my own beliefs and opinions? We then debated the nature of math. The Pit Bull again, contended that math is a social creation and those who had not been socialized like us would not understand it. Her idea was challenged by another, apparantly stupid undergrad, who said that even though some who had not been socialized like us may not understand the symbols, they would understand the concept of say four divided by 2.

She then took up the task of trying to convince us that every machine we've ever used has bias because it was built by humans. I'm of the opinion that in order to introduce bias an interpretation must be made. A particle accelerator is simply going to take measurements. It cannot decide which results to display and which to ignore. A computer with a camera that rated beauty would be introducing bias because it would be making an interpretation of beauty based on what its programmer told it.

And then, the ever important question of "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to see it, does it still make a sound?" (A can of worms if I've ever seen one)

My opinion is that no it doesn't. The word sound has connotations of hearing. Which requires ears. I'm sure that the tree falling still causes vibrations which we interpret as hearing and sound when we are there. If we left an instrument there, it would measure these vibrations. But does the instrument hear the sound? She thinks I'm wrong and its just semantics. I'm just using different words to describe the same thing. She got off on some example of dogs running away when trees fall. That I still don't see the relevancy in.

But it can't be just semantics because language defines reality. It is one of the major ways in which we conceptualize our world. The inuit have like 30 different words for snow and we have one.

What do you think? If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it still make a sound?