I think the standard analysis is essentially correct. So let’s accept that as a premise, and ask: Why do people get into such an argument? What’s the underlying psychology?
I think that people historically got into this argument because they didn’t know what sound was. It is a philosophical appendix, a vestigial argument that no longer has any interest.
The earliest citation in Wikipedia is from 1883, and it is a question and answer: “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?” [The asker] then went on to answer the query with, “No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion.”
So, if this is truly the origin, they knew the nature of sound when the question was first asked.
I think that people historically got into this argument because they didn’t know what sound was. It is a philosophical appendix, a vestigial argument that no longer has any interest.
The earliest citation in Wikipedia is from 1883, and it is a question and answer: “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?” [The asker] then went on to answer the query with, “No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion.”
So, if this is truly the origin, they knew the nature of sound when the question was first asked.