GirlChat #602341
The central question here is what the expression "empirical assertion" means. None of what you cited addresses that expression specifically.
The Dante reading is "an assertion that is supported by empirical proof". So one might say, "That's not an empirical assertion because he hasn't cited any proof for it." I haven't found any uses in Google results that support that reading. (There may be a few, because if you were confused about it, probably someone else somewhere was too.) The correct reading is "an assertion that can be tested if one could run the right experiment and collect the right data". This is how it is used in philosophy and science. I invite any interested parties to do a Google search on "empirical assertion". Running down the top Google hits that come up for me (not skipping any): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2251028?uid=3739664&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104693277843 "Empirical assertion theory" says that "normative ethical utterances make assertions" and they can be adequately formulated in an empirical language. It doesn't mean that they have evidence to back them up. http://www.ditext.com/sellars/hempel.html (does not disambiguate clearly) http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/LXI/244/458.full.pdf http://philpapers.org/rec/BRATSO-5 Other usages of "empirical assertion theory" http://priceofdata.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/on-the-conservative-movement-a-political-and-then-an-empirical-assertion/ Cites empirical assertion and then gives evidence, but no implication it would not be an empirical assertion if there were no evidence http://books.google.com/books?id=ojdCxZUdCgIC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=%22empirical+assertion%22&source=bl&ots=uLponGKjAA&sig=tLxWcKDGuWFWPgwLfTP3rfcw4WA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo4XVL-tKe_GsQS73IDYDQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22empirical%20assertion%22&f=false Empirical assertion is contrasted with logico-mathematical assertions. It's clearly concerned with whether it can be tested, not whether it actually has support or not. http://books.google.com/books?id=caILKQkl6LMC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=%22empirical+assertion%22&source=bl&ots=LjcZs6vn8_&sig=tfGN8nqMEYvJ2ETxSiEEJoYtcjI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo4XVL-tKe_GsQS73IDYDQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22empirical%20assertion%22&f=false "Rawls offers no evidence to support this sweeping, temporally unbounded empirical assertion". Very clear case. There's no evidence, but he does not dispute that it's an empirical assertion. http://books.google.com/books?id=Nwy-XXKGYy8C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=%22empirical+assertion%22&source=bl&ots=_X0YApsGOp&sig=Sa5gfepHzJKcRw0QO3q4Lo8TecA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo4XVL-tKe_GsQS73IDYDQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22empirical%20assertion%22&f=false Pretty hairy :-), but again focusing on whether something can be proven false, not whether it has been. http://books.google.com/books?id=ViFdkPdqGAkC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=%22empirical+assertion%22&source=bl&ots=G-4RiML5Ew&sig=LcpZo3olMjkgASQ-VhHLCGrG64Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo4XVL-tKe_GsQS73IDYDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22empirical%20assertion%22&f=false "attenuated" variant, skip this one. http://books.google.com/books?id=8OJkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22empirical+assertion%22&source=bl&ots=JFrXk96Rhj&sig=OvFXCzuZW9mFwI_oyE3BJAhe5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo4XVL-tKe_GsQS73IDYDQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22empirical%20assertion%22&f=false It's all about whether they can be tested, not whether they have support --------------- Skipping ahead, to find a couple examples stating the point most clearly: http://allzermalmer.wordpress.com/tag/ethics-of-belief/ "The only justification of an assertion, specifically an empirical assertion, is that it is possible to show that assertion is false." http://www.latimes.com/la-op-dustup18sep18-story.html#page=1 "This statement, again, is completely unsupported by any data and indeed has been refuted about as thoroughly as any empirical assertion can be." What is it in contrast to? An assertion that cannot be tested. ----------- Occasionally a source will say, "If you include an empirical assertion, provide evidence for it". That's saying they want proof, but it's not saying that it wouldn't even be an empirical assertion just because you had no proof. |