Theoretical question about balls and strikes...

[jicecone]

Originally posted by greymule
"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Hmmm. Interesting variation on the original question: "If a man says something in the forest and his wife's not there to hear it, is he still wrong?"

Don't know about your wife but I guarantee you my wife would hear it. Try getting that extra slice of pie out of the fridge or another scoop of ice cream out of the freezer, even that one extra cookie while she is not around. I swear my wife can hear me 1000 miles away. And once again I'm in trouble. You gotta love em.

At home it's a foul ball.

On the field, "It's nothing, till I calls it"

[edhern]

If you take the logical positist point of view then a strike is a strike regardless of who is behind the plate. The empirical definition of the strike zone must be used. If you take a more postmodernist pragmatic perspective then the strike zone is an interpretation of the experience of the person behind the plate. Hermenuetics would provide the basis for adjusting the zone to fit the situation such as age group or if the game is a blow out. I believe most umpires are postmodernists allowing the zone to vary but the zone itself has some empirical basis.

Ed H

[DG]

If I drop a hammer on a planet with positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know, that it in fact, did fall.

[edhern]

You comparing physical science with the human interpretation of reality. What is gravity? How do we experience it. We have a empirical definition of a strike zone, yet how we interpret it is the key. Take the Questec experiment as an example.

Ed H

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by edhern
If you take the logical positist point of view then a strike is a strike regardless of who is behind the plate. The empirical definition of the strike zone must be used. If you take a more postmodernist pragmatic perspective then the strike zone is an interpretation of the experience of the person behind the plate. Hermenuetics would provide the basis for adjusting the zone to fit the situation such as age group or if the game is a blow out. I believe most umpires are postmodernists allowing the zone to vary but the zone itself has some empirical basis.

Ed H

I am now the beagle looking at the ceiling fan.

How about "it's all horse$h!+."

[jicecone]

Originally posted by edhern
If you take the logical positist point of view then a strike is a strike regardless of who is behind the plate. The empirical definition of the strike zone must be used. If you take a more postmodernist pragmatic perspective then the strike zone is an interpretation of the experience of the person behind the plate. Hermenuetics would provide the basis for adjusting the zone to fit the situation such as age group or if the game is a blow out. I believe most umpires are postmodernists allowing the zone to vary but the zone itself has some empirical basis.

Ed H

Is it really possible to explain to the coach in this language, where the pitch was. I will definitly have to start wearing my wadders while doing the plate, because if I'm going to sound like on , I might as well look like one.

Dis-advantage: Your diction is too copious for my comprehension.

Advantage: No one, is going to ask you a second question.

[edhern]

Sorry, Soone Boomer got me started. I am in a Ph.D. program and one of the courses I am taking examines philosophy and social work theory. I keep the words short and sweet on the field or else many of the coaches won't understand. Once you go beyond 5 letter words (strike) it get tough.

Ed H

[JJ]

I still think the 3 Stooges analogy works.

[nickrego]

There are times when a strike is not called a strike...When the catcher makes it look like a ball !

Here is one possible answer to your question.

http://www.reegind.com/products_CallingPitches.htm

[Edited by nickrego on Oct 12th, 2004 at 03:53 PM]