Re: Empiricism 101

GirlChat #602276

Start A New Topic! Date Index Thread Index

Re: Empiricism 101

Posted by EthanEdwards on 2014-September-14 16:47:06 EDT, Sunday

In reply to Re: Empiricism 101 posted by Dante on 2014-September-14 06:53:29 EDT, Sunday

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.

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses

Re: Empiricism 101 - Dante on 2014-September-16 01:54:18 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 5)
- Dante is factually wrong, wrong, wrong - EthanEdwards on 2014-September-16 04:08:26 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 4)
  - Yes. - Dante on 2014-September-16 05:04:49 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
    - Re: Yes. - EthanEdwards on 2014-September-16 08:25:51 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
      - Empiricism 101 - Dante on 2014-September-16 15:02:38 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
    - Re: Empiricism 101 - Dante on 2014-September-16 06:05:00 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)