Is there sound?

I would say yes, although it probably depends upon your definition of sound. I would think that sound is the waves that travel through the air, so the falling tree will create those sound waves. If nobody is there to listen, then the sound waves will not be translated from waves into "sounds" as understood by a human or animal. But regardless, the waves will be in existence, so I would say that the tree did make a sound.

Perfect argument!  I agree completely!

Yes definitely, sound waves can affect organisms other than a human ear... I think that it is a ridiculous question and I dont know how you can debate it.  But Aimee brings up a good point, I am sure someone will come up with some mumbo jumbo "sound" definition.  Leave a cassette recorder and come back and get it later. 

I definitely agree with Aimee. Plus, the question says if "no one" is around, and of course in a forest there would be animals around and they would hear it!

Sound is not defined as "waves that are received by homo sapien auditory organs."   So what about this - what if we put remote control robotic machinery near a tree, put a camera there, hit record, and then drive 50 miles away.  We use our remote control to have the robot push a tree over, and it's all caught on camera.  Then we drive back and watch the footage.  Would there be no sound, because a human wasn't present? If there were deer standing nearby, and a tree fell, i'm sure they would run.  Or if the tree fell on a whoopee cushion, it would still make the fart sound.  Sound is waves.   Doesn't matter where those waves go.

Ok, now I finished the chapter so I am an authority on sound:

If by "sound" we mean a perceptual response then since there is no one present to “hear” the falling tree, the sound waves created by the tree as it fell would not be transduced into a perceptual response, so therefore there was no sound.

Sometimes "sound" refers to a physical simulus.  In this case the tree falling to the ground causes pressure changes whether or not someone is there to hear it, therefore using this definition there is sound. 

So Geof, you are partically incorrect that sound is not defined as waves received by homo sapiens.  It is true it does not need to be homos but as Chaco said it does have to be some living creature with auditory organs. 

Aimee was the most correct stating that it depends on the definition of sound.  Cami agreed with Aimee so she is also correct.  I don't know how to credit Scott, other than he tried.

EH??  I said sound is NOT defined by "something received by a homo sapien.. etc etc."   I said sound is waves, and it doesnt matter who what when where or why they are created.  Sound is a matter of physics, not psycho-analysis.  Its as crazy as saying water is only in the ocean if i am swimming there.  Sound is waves of atoms moving.  It's real.  Tangible.  Has nothing to do with humans ears.

According to the text there are 2 different ways of referring to sound--physical stimulus and perceptual response. Yes, you are right it does not have to be homos that receive it but for the perceptual meaning of sound the waves do have to reach an auditory system of a living creature--it has to reach some ears. You are correct using the physical stimulus definition of sound, that waves were created. 

I know, I know!

Oh wait, mom already gave the answer.   :-)

If a man is talking alone in the forest, and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

:)

hahaha!  You are so funny Danielle!  I love it!