What is the nature of empirical evidence?

Did I construct the synonymous relationship? Did I construct the definition of synonym? No? But you tried to reconstruct it by adding your own little requirement that is not contained in the definition of synonym. Did I construct the definition of the suffix " al " or the example that was used in that definition? That is a whole lot of non-construction on my part, heh?

Synonym: "1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another."

Empiric: "empiric [ɛmˈpɪrɪk]
n
1. a person who relies on empirical methods
2. (Medicine) a medical quack; charlatan
adj
a variant of empirical"

Empirical: "empirical [ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl]
adj
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory
2. (Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles "

Now does science use theory? Yes? Then science cannot depend on empirical evidence.

Etymology of Empirical:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=empirical&allowed_in_frame=0

Then prove that evidence presented by an empiric is not empirical evidence.

Then file a complaint if there is a violation of the TOS.

 

Razor: Here is another from days of old, which point a finger directly at the Pharmaceutical industry of today as being empirics, quacks, charlatans... dispensing snake-oils.

http://books.google.com/books?id=09...Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q="famous empirics"&f=false

 

I was referring to the dictionary definition you posted on this thread ya nit.

It amazes me that you have a degree but do not understand that common dictionary definitions are not sufficient to explain complex terms and ideas.

Did you not take any social sciences - Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, History .. and so forth ?

 

Utter nonsense. Most science depends on empirical evidence.

Let's just pretend you did not make the silly statement above and move on.

 

Empirical in reference to medicine means either hypothetecial or theoretical. Outside of medicine, and particularly when we speak of empirical evidence directly, it means practical. Inside and outside of medicine are two different items that are not synonymous, are not interchangable and are in fact diametrically opposed.the evidence of an empiric is maybe a hunch or a possibility or an inkling. Empirical evidence is proven and observable data. Never the two shall meet; no piece of information can be both at the same time.

If those definitions prove me wrong, show how so.

 

Such an illogical conclusion reflects a complete lack of knowledge between what a scientific theory is and what imperical evidence is. Of course the entire purpose of this thread is an attempt to justify ignorance.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory

Scientific Theories are developed and controlled by the Scientific Method which includes the following requirements (edited to provide specific information related to scientific theory - read the entire article for details).

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Scientific_method

Emperical evidence, as used in science, can be either the foundation for verification process for theories.

http://www.helium.com/items/769638-the-meaning-of-empirical-evidence

Of course addressing a definition of emperical evidence in a religious forum is nothing but a dishonest attempt to give "scientific" creditability to religious beliefs through deception and distortion of what the scientific definition of emperical evidence actually is. It relies on "common usage" and "root words" in an attempt to distort the specific meaning of emperical evidence in science.

It is similiar to the attempts by religious funamentalists to distort the meaning of the word theory when they use it. They propose that "creationism" and "intelligent design" are also theories and therefore have the same validity as the "Theory of Natural Selection" as proposed by Charles Darwin. The problem is that they use the following definition of theory:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

To the religious funamentalist a "theory" is nothing but conjecture or assumption but ignore that a scientific theory must meet the criteria of scientific methodology. Pure conjecture or assumption falls far short of the requirements of scientific methodology and the two cannot be compared.

So the entire OP is tainted with an agenda to deceive others into believing that a common definition and a scientific definition of the same words and terms are identical but they are far from that. The "common usage" definitions do not meet the strict and limited criteria of the scientific definitions and the two are not comparable.

 

Does this sound familiar....... Ah... Just more opinion.

 

It is one thing to make an error, it is quite another to try and maintain that error when shown to be wrong, this is the mark of a fool.

Shiva gave you a long detailed post showing you that error and all you have to say is "just more opinion" ?

You do not take even one moment to say what you think is opinion.

To remind you of where you went off course:

This statment is illogical and just wrong. If this is not what you meant to imply then simply correct it. We all make mistakes.

 

I have not been shown to be wrong. That is the whole problem.

My comment is based upon what he has stated in another thread relative to the issue of 'fact'. In his summation on the issue of 'fact', he has essentially stated that the definition spoken of regarding fact is fat= belief = opinion according to that definition. Now he is wanting to lean on opinion to form a belief that the opinion is fact.

Got a dictionary? Look it up. Keep the mind as clutter free as possible. When I first started studying electronics 4 decades ago, my first instructor gave me a precious piece of information. "Don't clutter your mind with rules, and formulas and such, when there are countless number of printed pieces that are readily available to provide that information to you." Even in spite of that valuable piece of information, certain pieces of those rules and formulas, through the process or rote, have become embedded in my memory.

My point is this. If he cannot provide the information from his own mind and instead has to lean on outside references, shows that HE truly does not KNOW the information himself, yet HE wants me to clutter my mind with stuff that he cannot recite. So to prove HIS point, he has to return to the source, which happens to be the opinions of yet other men/women (gender as the case may be).

The statement of mine is not illogical. "Science" cannot be assigned a dependence without first acknowledging what that dependence is. Science is dependent first upon the human that is using that 'science' as a tool. Second, science would be dependent upon the evidence provided by who? By the human that is using the tool (science) and the evidence (empirical). Thus the human providing the evidence is an empiric and the evidence derived from that human is empirical.

 

My second comment in the above post currently reads (in relevant part) "he has essentially stated that the definition spoken of regarding fact is fat= belief = opinion according to that definition. Now he is wanting to lean on opinion to form a belief that the opinion is fact."

Corrected version should read: 'he has essentially stated that the definition spoken of regarding fact is fact= belief = opinion according to that definition. Now he is wanting to lean on opinion to form a belief that the opinion is fact."

 

It is inanely simple to show you are wrong.

Much of science depends on empirical evidence.

For example: Pure water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius at standard atmospheric pressure.

This is independently verifiable and science depends on this fact being true.

 

Sorry, but that does not prove me wrong. In fact, it supports what I am saying. In your example above, What did science do? Nothing. People (empiric people) did. Using Science as a tool, and collecting empirical evidence (water[pure] Pure is also subjective, as there are no absolutes) and creating an artificial environment where the water could be frozen. BTW: the 0 degrees Celsius is yet another one of those 'yardsticks' that are subjective in their construction.

At any rate, you nor the other poster have proven my interpretation to be wrong, nor have either of you proven the definitions to be wrong.

 

RevA summed it up nicely right there. This thread and the three almost identical ones that preceded it must be part of a malicious agenda.

Incorporeal, you had Shiva spell out for you in great detail what empirical evidence is, and with just the most unbelievable display of hubris, you shrug it off as opinion. Further you count everything and everyone as subjective...except yourself and your selection of mismatched definitions. These you portray as factual. Double standard and ego aside, when shown that these arguments are bad, you brush off the reasoning with the flimsiest ecuses imaginable and stand by your bad arguments.

Further dealings with you can only reflect badly on me. I can't be bothered with that.

Believe what you want. I can't be bothered with that either.

 

Yes he does, and if you read what he has stated, you will see a much greater message than what little bit you speak about below.

Wrong from the very opening of that paragraph above. What Shiva did, Shiva did on His own accord and of his own free will. I did not have him do anything. Yes! I cast his explanation aside, because the explanation was not "his" explanation. The explanation(s) he offered, was the opinions of other people who are not present in this forum to discuss the issue with, else the explanations were dependent upon the opinions of other people. Much in the same manner that I also used the opinions of other people who are not present (the writers of those definitions). So, he rejects my views with the wave of a hand and I reciprocate.

The error of presumption on your part. You presume (based on what I have written) that I "count everything and everyone as subjective". Other that my partial quotation that I just wrote, can you show me where I have used those exact words in my writings relating to my view of 'everything and everyone'? No? Presuming something to be a fact that has not been determined.

No! You have perceived that I have 'portrayed' these "as factual"

"bad" is a subjective 'yardstick'. Do you really want to go there?

You do have the capacity of free will. If you don't want to be bothered by something or someone, then stay away from that thing or that person.

Don't we all 'believe' what we want to believe? If you can't be bothered with what others believe, then why are you here in a discussion forum where 'beliefs' is the primary and fundamental issue at discussion?

 

The freezing point of water is not subjective. Regardless of the yardstick used to measure temperature, the freezing point of water will always reflect the same value and is verifiable by others.

The definition of pure is another absolute once defined - free from impurities to X ppm.

Water with less than X ppm impurities will freeze at value Y with absolute certainty.

It does not matter the value used for purity nor the yardstick used for temperature measurment. The freezing point of water will always be the same, verifiable and repeatable using that yardstick and that definition of purity.

 

'value' = yardstick, and that yardstick was constructed by using an arbitrary set of numbers and placed physically or electronically on a scale whose corresponding numbers were designed to meet the needs of the arbitrary numbers on the original yardstick called 'value'. That arbitrariness of the numbers is what makes it subjective. That arbitrariness is further demonstrated by comparing the Celsius scale to that of the Fahrenheit scale or even the Kelvin and Rankine scales. Wow... that means that there could be potentially one that was named the "Giftedone" scale. As long as you force the numbers of the Giftedone scale to correspond to the original scale, then everything is OK. But it would further demonstrate the arbitrary nature of such scales. Now where did the numbers for the first temperature scale come from?

Pure, by definition is 100% without any impurities. If there remains even 1PPM then the substance is not 'pure'.

Again, using an arbitrary number system. Your statement is arbitrary by virtue of you saying "X ppm" as opposed to knowing and writing that figure that would manifest the expected result of the, again arbitrary, "value Y".

Contradiction detected in your statements within the last paragraph. On the one hand you suggest that the 'value used for purity' and 'the yardstick used' does not matter, then you proceed to mandate the use of a 'yardstick' and particular "definition of purity".

The definition of pure:

"pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est
1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: " Among other definitions asserting the same condition of being free from impurities.

 

Come on folks... this is not about me... this is about a definition that is found in a secular dictionary. Defeat that dictionary definitions with proof ... Prove the definitions to be a mistaken definitions which would mean that it is demonstrating a mistaken fact. BUT... the proof must be conclusive and not leave anything open to further subjective issues.

 

I agree its not about you IC. That said I can agree that there is a double standard in defining some words. I was wondering IC. Do you think there should be two dictionaries? I mean I highly doubt that there will ever be an agreement between secular and all religious folk on even the meaning of one or two words, truth and evidence, much less than an entire dictionary of words. The best we could hope for is that a scholarly group would produce a two tier dictionary, one with a secular definitional and a religious spin. We do already have such things on the web. There is now Conservapedia to challenge Wikipedia etc. I hope I haven't ventured too far off topic IC...

Rev A

 

This is a great example of where your dictionary definitions fails you. Your dictionary definition is wrong and so are you. There is no such thing as "pure water" in the practical sense.

Free from impuities does not mean 100% pure in chemistry. I am a Chemist and as any Chemist knows .. when we talk of "pure substances" what is meant is "relatively free from impurities".

The definition of pure for the purposes of the feezing point of water is water having less than X impurities. X = some arbitrarily defined value.

Water with 10% salt in it does not freeze at 0 for example.

As long as the experimentor has relatively pure water, the freezing point of water is measurable and yeilds repeatable results which can be verified by independent observers.

The arbitrariness of the scale used nor the experimental conditions does not change the fact that the freezing point of water is not arbitrary and represents empirical evidence used by scientists.

 

And that is where you have just blew your own argument completely out of the polluted water of rationalizations (excuses).

Your original example was based upon error. You pointed out above that "there is no such thing as "pure water" in the practical sense", but as seen below, your previous statements contradict what you have stated above.

"For example: Pure water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius at standard atmospheric pressure.

This is independently verifiable and science depends on this fact being true. "

Free from impuities does not mean 100% pure in chemistry. I am a Chemist and as any Chemist knows .. when we talk of "pure substances" what is meant is "relatively free from impurities".

The freezing point is arbitrary when it is stated that the freezing point is 32 F and 0 C.... Arbitrary because of the arbitrary numbers. Don't you understand what you are writing?

 

Do not blame your lack of understanding of "Pure Water" in relation to freezing point measurment on me.

The freezing point is not arbitrary. It is the same every time you measure it !

The numbers being arbitrary does not make the freezing point arbitrary. Change to whatever scale you like and the freezing point of water will be the same number as long as you use the same measuring device.

You are just confused by the units.

We can bring a third scale and fourth scale into play. Energy and weight.

The energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree C = 1 calorie.

The energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water is the same regardless of which temperature scale is used.

The units you use is arbitrary .. the amount of energy required is the same.

When you pay your energy bill, regardless of whether it is calculated using farenheit or celcius your bill will still be the same.

You method of payment you use is arbitrary. If your bill is one dollar you could pay in dimes or dollars but the amount you pay will still be the same.
10 dimes = 1 dollar

A dollar is a dollar regardless of what units are used to equal a dollar.

1 degree F = 5/9 degree C and this is always true because it is defined as such.

The freezing point of water is constant and is not arbitrary. It does not change from one day to another.

The length of a football field does not change because one chooses to measure it in feet or yards.

Changing the unit of measurment does not change the length of a football field.

Got it ?

 

In your original example you specified 'pure' water. No restrictions, no special conditions, no less percentages than "pure' water. Then later, when you find that you have been busted on the 'pure' issue, then you start all of your rationalizations/excuses (as any typical non-theist would do) in a wild extravagant attempt to hide your own fallibility and attempt to pass the error off on someone else. And below, you continue with that silly one man stage play entitled 'please let me hide somewhere'. No Giftedone. You cannot hide from your error. Even funnier is the fact that all of the BS that you brought into this thread about "pure water" is just a distraction.

Now, unless you can defeat the dictionary definitions of the terms previously under discussion, then you have nothing of importance to add.

 

I have to agree that when it comes to defining terms and words that nearly all atheists refuse to admit when they make a mistake especially when losing said debate, then they immediately attempt damage control by claiming they meant this (word) instead of that (word). There is even a common word that atheists invariably use and then attempt to change in mid argument. Most theists know the atheist claim (Mantra?) that there is no evidence to support the existence of God. However when I gleefully begin ticking off evidences to support gods existence they resort to a most unethical but very common tactic. They consistently claim that they meant to say there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Of course that argument is as unethical as the first and will not hold water due to the double standard it produces. So that is the (bad) experience I have had with atheists while attempting to debate in good faith with some of the more radically positioned atheists.

RevA

 

Not off topic, considering that most of this discussion has been dedicated to clearing the air about the definitions of 'empirical'.

As for the suggestion of the two tier or new dictionaries altogether. I don't it is necessary, IF the people using words would simply add enough modifiers (adjectives) to make their statements unambiguous with regard to what specific manner they are attempting to use a particular word in a sentence. Sure it would be requiring more words causing some to be labeled as 'too verbose' or similar such things... but it would certainly reduce the amount of friction as to what specifically is being discussed and in what contextual category the issue stands.

 

It was you that started rambling on about "pure water" and the definition of purity because you are too ignorant to realize that the purity of the water does not matter as long as the purity is kept the same for each experiment.

It is you who wishes to divert the thread with your disingenuous nonsense about what constitutes pure water.

You are completely void of understanding about how units work in science.

You cant even figure out that 10 dimes = a dollar and can not seem to understand the concept that 32 F = 0 C

Your statement that because Science sometimes relies on theory that Science in general does not rely on empirical evidence is a complete joke.

Your claim that the freezing point of water is arbitrary is further evidence of your complete lack of understanding of units and the definition of arbitrary.

Last ... Pure water in terms of freezing point measurment .. is not pure. http://www.philasim.org/newmanual/exp27.pdf

Note that in the experiment the "pure water" is exposed to open air which means it can not be pure "according to your silly dictionary definition" because the water will contain dissolved oxygen and other gasses. j

Duhhhhh