The_Farmer_and_Daisy

Mr. Bickley Philosophy 100 I think that there are many ways you can look at this. I do think that the farmer could have seen the Daisy and couldn't of. I also do think that the dairyman could've seen Daisy but also have been mistaken. It is possible for the farmer to have seen Daisy because he was looking in the distance and saw what he believed to be her. He thought that because he saw black and white. The dairyman believes he saw her because he said he saw her happily grazing in the field. He also saw her behind the bush. I don't think his eyesight is poor, but he also did not touch the cow so I don't know for sure if he really did see Daisy. The farmer believes that when he went to go look to see if his cow was there that she was because he saw black and white in the distance. I partially agree with that. Cows are black and white. We haven't known them to be anything else. If the farmer is saying that he can see his cow in the distance because he sees something black and white it would only make sense to believe that he sees the cow. Unless it was a different animal in his field that was black and white. Let's remember that Daisy is Farmer Field's prize cow. He could have just seen what he wanted to see. There are many animals on a farmer's field. It is possible that there could have been another animal walking around. Now, it says that he saw the cow, or the other animal, standing by a tree. That may be true. I do believe that it was possible for something to be there. But the farmer did not go out into the field and go up to Daisy personally. Later on in the story it does say that the dairyman found the cow behind a bush. The dairyman states that when he went to go look out in the field for the first time, that he saw the cow happily grazing in the field. He did not give any evidence to back that up, he just simply said that he saw it out there. I do believe that he could have seen the cow, depending on the distance. How far was the cow in the field' If the cow was really far, it could have been something else. Did he see the cow up close' We do not know that. When the dairyman goes out to see if Daisy is there for a second time, he goes out into the field and finds that she is laying behind a bush. The dairyman never touched Daisy and never said that he felt her for himself. It could have been a different animal. He simply just said that he saw her there. If he said he felt her, that would have been good evidence to support that he did in fact see her. In the story, it says that the dairyman sees the cow “well out of sight of the gate, behind a bush, having a nap.” With that being said, the dairyman believes that the farmer could not have seen the cow from where he was standing. I partially agree with that because the farmer did say that he was standing by the gate when he went to go out to the field to look for her. But on the other hand, Daisy could have walked from where she was before and laid down behind the bush. It is not for certain that she has been behind that bush the entire time. So the farmer could have seen the cow before she moved, if she even did. Also, when the dairyman said that he went out in the field to go see if Daisy was out there he said that he found a piece of black and white paper caught up in the tree. This can lead to having doubt with the farmer's statement saying that he saw the cow from the gate. It is possible that the farmer could have been looking at the black and white piece of paper. It is possible that the dairyman could have been looking at the paper the first time he said he saw Daisy out in the field. The paper could have looked like it was flowing in the wind, and that is what made the dairyman say that Daisy was happily grazing in the field. It is not for certain. In conclusion, there could have been a cow in the field or it could have been a different animal. They both could have been right and they both could have been wrong. They both have somewhat something to back up the reasons why they saw it. They could have mistaken the cow for the paper because it is not a small piece of paper or they could have mistaken the cow for a different animal if the animal wasn't small. This is something that can be looked at in all different angles. It is also possible that the farmer, being that it was his prized cow, just saw what we wanted to see and the dairyman was telling the farmer what he wanted to hear. I do and don't believe the cow was in the field. Farmer's Argument If I see black and white, then I see Daisy. I saw black and white. Therefore, I see Daisy. If I see Daisy for myself, she is in the field. I saw Daisy myself. Therefore, she was in the field All cows are animals. All animals have legs and can walk. Therefore all cows have legs and can walk. Dairyman's Argument If I see Daisy happily grazing in the field she is there. I saw Daisy happily grazing in the field. Therefore, she was there. If I go into the field I will see Daisy. I went into the field. Therefore, I saw Daisy. If you look in the field from the gate you will not see Daisy. The farmer looked in the field from the gate. Therefore, he did not see Daisy. My Arguments If the farmer saw black and white, he saw Daisy. He saw black and white. Therefore, he saw Daisy. If the dairyman touched Daisy, he saw the cow, He did not touch Daisy. Therefore, he did not see the cow. If the dairyman says he saw Daisy, he saw the cow. The dairyman says he saw Daisy. Therefore, he saw the cow. If the farmer saw black and white, he saw the paper in the tree. The farmer saw black and white. Therefore, he saw the paper in the tree. If the farmer sees Daisy from the gate she didn't move. The farmer saw Daisy from the gate. Therefore, she didn't move. If the dairyman says you cannot see Daisy from the gate she is behind the bush. The dairyman says she is behind the bush. Therefore you cannot see Daisy.