If a tree falls in a forest and no one witnesses it did it really happen?

 This is an example of one of the things I find fault with regarding philosophic questioning and scientific Questioning. Because philosophic questioning led to scientific questioning and I find both at fault because of their answer to this question.

The answer according to both philosophic questioning and scientific questioning is; 'if no one saw the tree fall then it didn't happen."

YOU and I might say: "What?" and I think this is the appropriate answer.

So, from my point of view if I come upon a fallen tree in the forest I know it fell I just might not know when it fell. But, to philosophic enquiry and to scientific enquiry you CANNOT assume that the tree fell ever unless you saw it fall.

Which I think is preposterous and stupid of both philosophic enquiry and scientific enquiry too.

It's one of the reasons we are so screwed up in reality here on earth because of this one premise!

However, in fairness here there is a reason that they do this. The reason is they want you to observe personally what happens and if you can't observe it happen then they are saying it didn't happen at all.

The main reason for doing this is so people don't make assumptions that cannot be proved in a court of law or scientifically.

So, especially in the past it prevented people fighting over their beliefs of what happened in any given situation. So, setting this as a philosophic and scientific premise likely saved lives from people disagreeing over what actually happened in various situations when it couldn't be physically observed and witnessed by anyone.

So, it gives rise to the adage which is: Truth is always much stranger than fiction.

However, I still personally have a serious problem with this premise.

But, now that people are educated to think this way around the world I think they need to change this premise to one that actually fits the times we live in now.