[GarthB]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
Actually being a philosophy major, which is where this question was first posed to me, I'll take a shot at breaking this down.

The idea behind the question is to get at the bigger question of: Is the world what it is regardless of our pressence or does it require our interpretation? And secondly should that interpretation differ from individual to individual based on vantage point? It is similar to the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" question.

In the end it is purely a philosophical question with no "right" or "wrong" answer. The challenge is only to believe one way or the other and support your position. That said here goes:

The first umpire states that he calls them as they are. This as was stated above suggests that he has the ability to decide without doubt what a pitch was. Just as important as this though is the idea that all pitches are balls or strikes and it should be the same no matter who stands behind the plate. This is the generally accepted idea of how it should be done (in a perfect world). I think though that we should all realize that we don't have that "perfect" ability to judge all pitches exactly "as they are".

The second umpire states that he calls them as he sees them. This allows one to assume that he is suggesting that his vantage point and vision have some bearing on the call. He is somewhat in agreement with the first umpire that pitches are what they are (based on the rules of course), but realizes that he is limited in his ability to make the "right" call 100% of the time.

Finally, the third umpire states that they are nothing until he calls them. This last view suggests that he feels his opinion and only his opinion decides what a pitch is. As was stated before from a pyschological standpoint, this is the belief of most dictatorial personalities. However from a philosophical standpoint, we must ask, isn't there some truth to this idea. For example, what was a turkey before we named it a turkey? Obviously, most are quick to say its a turkey regardless of what it is actually called (these would be proponents of the previous umpires: ump 1 saying its a turkey and that is what I will call it; ump 2 saying its a bird that might be a turkey and might be something else, I'll have to get a good look.) In baseball terms, a pitch (regardless of its status) is just that, a pitch until some declaration is made to status: ball or strike. This umpire believes most strongly that the world around us depends on us to interpret it and make it what it is.

Now it appears that I support the third umpire, but that is only because the case is easier to make for ump 3. Does that make him right? No, because as I said above there is no right or wrong concerning this question. From a position of wanting to make everybody happy though I think we should all support the first ump's position, but do it from the mindset of the third ump, with the realism of the second umpire. Spelled out more clearly, we must all strive to call pitches as the rule book states, but at the same time we must call something and thereby give definition to the pitch. All of this said, we must do it with the humility to realize we aren't perfect.

And that's all I have to say about that.

This why I never hung around with Philosophy majors