In the thread in question, I first referred to it as an "empirical question". That means a question that can be settled by experiment, regardless of whether any experiments have been done.

I later said "empirical assertion". That is a proposed answer to an empirical question, with no implication that it has already been tested.

http://www.ditext.com/sellars/hempel-f.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth,_and_Logic


An "empirically supported assertion", in contrast, would be one that has actual facts behind it.

But your mistake about how this language is used is not so important.

Rereading your post with that misunderstanding in mind, I can see that we are not necessarily all that far apart on standards of evidence, and that is comforting.