What does the term "empirical evidence" mean to you?

@NaturalMineralWater asked:
“How would you sum up in a paragraph all of the empirical evidence that has brought you to where you are right this minute with regards to your beliefs (or lack thereof)?”

Are you kidding? That is impossible.

empirical = scientific

@The_unconservative_one Thank You! LOL.. that’s what I said..but somehow I was supposed to for someone.

@theluckiest empirical does seem to have contradictory definitions.. I’ll leave it to you to decide which one I’m considering.

Empirical evidence is a way of describing knowledge obtained through an experiment. Strictly speaking, an experiment should have a hypothesis, a manipulation of a single variable, observations, and a conclusion drawn based on those observations.

Is it just some way of labeling life experience?
I believe that some life experiences could be considered empirical evidence. For example, suppose you go on three separate dates with three separate guys. One dates one and two, you wear a push-up bra. On date three, you do not. Suppose the gentlemen from dates one and two both call for another date, and the gentleman from date three did not. You could then deduce a trend suggesting that push-up bras lead to second dates.

Is there merit to it?
You tell me. Would you rather take a pill that had been tested during clinical trials to treat a medical condition you had, or would you rather take your chances and choose any pill at random?

Is it worth considering despite its avoidance of the scientific method?
I believe this fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of the word “empirical.” It categorically does not avoid the scientific method. I do not believe there is any commonly used definition, colloquial or formal, that separates empirical thought from scientific thought.

How would you sum up in a paragraph all of the empirical evidence that has brought you to where you are right this minute with regards to your beliefs (or lack thereof)?

Are you referring specifically to religious beliefs? We can do a nice little experiment right now.

Dear God,

If you exist, please bring me candy in the next ten seconds.

(One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.)

Who thinks I have candy right now?

@nikipedia This is what my dictionary says for empirical: “2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.”
And like I said.. it does seem to have contradictory definitions.. could we just skip the problems with the dictionary and go with what you know I’m driving at? Empirical.. as in life experience.. as in those things observed by YOU in YOUR life.

As far as that last bit in your post.. well .. that’s just childish.. xD

“Is it just some way of labeling life experience?”

technically, yes. evidence that one has learned can be duplicated according to the scientific method. if i didn’t do the test myself, then i guess i can’t say for certain that it is empirical, right?

evidence comes in a few forms though. One of them is testimony.
you can trust someone else to do a test for you and then base your actions on what they report back.

for example, if your wife says your dog died and I say your dog is still alive.. who’s testimony means more to you? you tend to trust the testimony of whichever person holds the most “empirical data” (of the personal experience variety) behind them to suggest that their opinion is valid over that of their competitors.

@NaturalMineralWater: I am surprised your dictionary included the word “method.” Empirical data is often contrasted with the idea of a theory because a theory is not actual experience or observation (although a good theory is derived from experiences and observation).

I don’t actually know what you’re driving at. What would you like to know about things I’ve observed in my life? That is a vast data set.

We call “knowledge based on life experience” “a posteriori”, empirical evidence being a subset of that, and having been scrutinized according to a scientific method. Just for clarification sake… not that the dictionary is wrong… but in my experience (ha) this is what the terms mean in application. Knowledge based on observation without undergoing scientific scrutiny (the vast majority of our experience) can be called a posteriori or something else like “experiential”... I’m not sure of another specific term for that…

don’t be shy. dictionaries often suck beyond suck.

@nikipedia Something other than: ‘I prayed for candy and it didn’t show up’ would be great. =)
If that’s all the empirical data required to make you believe what you do you must have an interesting life.

@ninjacolin Agreed. Dictionaries cause such wasted textual breath on fluther…..

wait.. i’m not perfectly certain that that example wasn’t good enough.

if i say to myself right now: “Colin if you can grab that lollipop, I’d like you to do so in 5 seconds”

5, 4, .., 2, 1.. i did it.

but if i now.. throw the lollipop away… then give myself the same test:

5…..1… shoot.. i really couldn’t do it. it was too far for me to get to.
i really wasn’t able to get that candy no matter how much i tried.

so, i think that simple example might actually speak to what god is able to do as well.

Found this on the Wiki site:

Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Such research may also be conducted according to hypothetico-deductive procedures, such as those developed from the work of R. A. Fisher.

The researcher attempts to describe accurately the interaction between the instrument (or the human senses) and the entity being observed. If instrumentation is involved, the researcher is expected to calibrate her/his instrument by applying it to known standard objects and documenting the results before applying it to unknown objects.

Still not sure it works.

What comes to me right off is, “proven”. Proven by what means? I don’t know.

@NaturalMineralWater

“Thank You! LOL.. that’s what I said..but somehow I was supposed to for someone.”

You are being deceitful here. You claimed you had empirical evidence of the existence of a god. When you were called on this, by myself and others, you stated that you could not, in reality, provide the evidence.

Lots of data. Like the features of the animals and plants on the Galapagos islands.

@PastorJeff Quite interesting indeed.

@crisw I’m not interested in a cross-thread squabble. I would, however, enjoy your input on my question.

@all Empirical evidence to me means: Every feeling, taste, sight, smell and sound that you’ve experienced in your lifetime. Everything is experience. Everything is observation. Everything is experiment. Everything is a piece (regardless of how minuscule) of your own personal puzzle of evidence.

Is it just some way of labeling life experience?
Yes. But if you want to get technical.. which I know some of you can’t help yourselves on.. it means other things as well.

Is there merit to it?
OF COURSE there’s merit to it! If you don’t consider the lessons learned from your life and use them to altar your course as appropriate.. you’re not very wise imho.

Is it worth considering despite it’s avoidance of the scientific method?
There are so many aspects of life that don’t fit into a box. Science needs a box. Nuff said.

How would you sum up in a paragraph all of the empirical evidence that has brought you to where you are right this minute with regards to your beliefs (or lack thereof)?
This would be one large paragraph indeed. Let me see if I can uber-paraphrase.

The things I’ve learned in church and in the bible.. I’ve found them to be true.. despite my best efforts for them not to be.

@NaturalMineralWater Your definition of the word is quite false. I am surprised at the definition you cited from the dictionary as well, it is very misleading.

Empirical evidence is evidence derived from physical, natural observations, research, and experimentation. Personal experience in and of itself is not empircal evidence. Your emotions, thoughts, feelings, personal revelations, etc are most certainly not empirical evidence.

For example, if I claimed to see Bigfoot, my story about how scared I was or how amazing it was is not empirical evidence. If I provided photographs or fur or footprints or something, that would be empirical evidence.

When someone asks you for empirical evidence, they are asking you for physical evdience gathered through physical means in an attempt to explain a phenomenon.

I’m not sure why a few of you have such trouble with my definition of empirical.. it… came .. from the dictionary…and is mirrored in… other .. dictionaries…

Perhaps I should then append a new question for those who disagree with my choice of words: What is the phrase that describes what I’ve been calling “empirical evidence”? What phrase describes my meaning of it?

For those not springing a leak in their life raft on a flea hair… answer the question as normal. xD

@NaturalMineralWater You are bing misled by the definition. The word ‘empiricism’ has a slightly different meaning in philosophy than it does when used in the phrase ‘empirical evidence.’ Empiricism means gathering information and coming to conclusions from your own personal experience, yes, but you are misinterpreting the phrase ‘personal experience.’ Personal experience means physical data that you have acquired. Empirical evidence is evidence derived from our physical senses. The word only exists to contrast the notion that conclusions can be derived through emotional or spiritual manners.

This is not nitpicking. If you are going to claim that your beliefs are supported by empirical evidence, you should probably understand what the word means.

Now, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether or not it is valid to draw conclusions from personal experience (not physical observations). In my opinion, absolutely not. Our emotions cloud or judgment and reasons. Our beliefs act as perceptutal screens. We see what we want to see and we believe what we want to believe. Our memories are highly inaccurate and unreliable. Our brains create a model of the existing world that is often inaccurate and influenced by our previously held beliefs.

“What is the phrase that describes what I’ve been calling “empirical evidence”? ”

Anecdotal evidence, opinion, personal experience, conjecture

@NaturalMineralWater

I have no idea what dictionary you are using but it’s wrong. Medicine does indeed use the scientific method.

Here is Webster’s definition(s) of the word.
1 originating in or based on observation or experience

2 relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

3 capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

Here is the Compact Oxford English Dictionry
1 Based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/empirical?view=uk

The Oxford Dictionary of the English language is considered to be the definitive source, and your definition doesn’t match it.

The things I’ve learned in church and in the bible.
I woudn’t use religous teaching to line my cat’s litter box, let alone take them to heart.

Holy twisted tangent Batman! Enough of Diaper Danny and the Dictionary police..If we are going to run around claiming our dictionaries are erroneous we’re gonna be here a while..oh .. and those of you that are such experts in the field of vocabulary might wanna tip off dictionary.com that their data is all screwy.. Stop analyzing my answer and just answer for yourselves!

I take it you guys are the ones that correct someone if they say “we’re going on a trip up to mexico”.. when they’re from california.. you guys are the ones that just have to interject and say.. “no.. you mean down to mexico”... holy halibut that type of person rubs my fur the wrong way.. lol.. how many of you are Ross from “Friends”.. just raise your hand now.. that’s it.. put it up there.. ok.. those of you who raised your hands.. get out. lol

@ivan And just to add on Ivan’s Bigfoot example, let’s say that he has a picture of Bigfoot. That is emperical evidence, but it is not proof. It could be a person dressed up in a Bigfoot suit. The way science works is that it creates a test, collects the evidence, and then creates another test and collect the evidence in another test. You continue to collect empiric evidence until you have a working theory on a subject.

You are absolutely wrong that empiric evidence is not used in medicine. I can site 20 examples off the top of my head if you want.

@NaturalMineralWater

You seem to have a really hard time dealing with being incorrect.

Bottom line- you don’t have empiric evidence for the existence of a god, by any scientifically-accepted definition. Note that scientific and lay definitions are often at odds (for example, the scientific definition of “theory” is very difefrent from the lay definition.)

Rather than battling about what the phrase really means, perhaps you should just stop using it incorrectly- or, at the very least, not respond to “OK then, where is that emnpirical evidence?” with “Uhhhh…I can’t show it to you.”

@NaturalMineralWater This question is written “What does the term “empirical evidence” mean to you?” How exactly is correcting you about the definition of the term off topic or irrelevant? That seems to be the entire point of this question. We aren’t nitpicking. The difference between your definition and the real definition is much, much larger than the difference between the words “up” and “down” in your example.

All the evidence i’ve taken in to date has lead me to believe this:

“As a human creature you either believe, disbelieve or are uncertain of a premise at any one time. You cannot control which belief state you are in for that premise. I believe every human is a rational human being who has been convinced to believe whatever they currently believe is true regardless of whether it is actually true or not. I also believe that any sane human being can be convinced to believe anything whether they are willing to believe it or not as long as they are given sufficient evidence.”

Empirical refers to observable and quantifiable evidence (by human senses) separate from theory or system. And by theory or sytem they refer not to scientific theory but pre conceived bias.
I plant two seeds in 2 cups in Kindergarten. One gets light and water the other does not. I observe, form hypotheses based on observation, deduce cosequences, test hypotheses and evaluate the outcome.

As per A.D. de Groot’s Empirical Cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypotheses.
Induction: Formulating hypotheses.
Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypotheses with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing.

Consider the following statements
Babies are evil- there is no empirical evidence to support this
Babies make lots of poo- there is much empirical evidence to support this.

Well, one learns something new every day. I always thought that ‘empirical’ meant according to the well tested, available evidence. If somebody says that women are not as numerate as men, then s/he can be challenged to produce evidence that is reliable, i.e. tested, consistent and measurable. Babies make lots of poo – I defy anyone who has had the care of a baby not to remember the 8 or 9 diapers a healthy infant uses every day (once upon a time I had to wash them!). But that babies are evil? not provable without empirical evidence of evil (which opens a new can of worms).

But one paragraph could not sum up the totality of a life, not even that of a protozoan. (There’s my species ism showing!) Let alone the experiences that brought the individual to the present.

It’s science not conjecture or opinion. A.D de Groot’s Empirical Cycle forms the basis of empirical evidence as I mentioned.
@bea2345
I defy anyone who has had the care of a baby not to remember the 8 or 9 diapers a healthy infant uses every day (once upon a time I had to wash them!).
I said- “Babies make lots of poo” as a declarative statement and something that can be shown by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Why would you defy a conclusion I formed that was the same as your own? Every time I try to be as plain as rain there is always some “genius” who challenges nothing.

@SeventhSense I wasn’t challenging you, I was re-stating your point – that is a problem I have with chatrooms and the like; the original comment and my reply are not on the same part of the screen (hey, a solution has just suggested itself). So on occasion my answer does not make sense.

@iftheshoefits I seem to remember saying this waaaaaaaaayy back up at the top: “And like I said.. it does seem to have contradictory definitions.. could we just skip the problems with the dictionary and go with what you know I’m driving at? Empirical.. as in life experience..”

Was that not good enough for you? Some of you are like the greatest mules ever. Stubborn and insatiable.

@bea2345
I apologize. That’s why it’s key to be clear what we are saying and or responding to agreeing with etc.

@NaturalMineralWater .If we are going to run around claiming our dictionaries are erroneous we’re gonna be here a while

I figured out what’s wrong with your dictionary :D :D :D

You have to be know medical history to spot the mistake made by the editors of dictionary.com made, that the editors of Webster’s and Oxford did not

The editors of dictionary.com use Empirical and Empirics interchangeably
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Empirics

“Empirical” medicine(a/k/a Empiric medicine) was the norm 100 years ago and was pretty much a joke as it had no methodology and was far from rigorous, similar to many of today’s “Alternative medicine” practices. hence why some of the definitions at dictionary.com make reference to quacks.

Looking at it that way, I think you are using Empirical Evidence and Empiricism interchangeably, they are to different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empirical is to Empiricism as Astronomy is to Astrology, or as Chemistry is to Alchemy.

There is nothing metaphysical about Empirical or Empirical Evidence.

Harmony wins again!

@HarmonyAlexandria @Ivan Agreed, well done Harmony!

@HarmonyAlexandria
You defined the term well as per Webster’s but this was uncalled for:
I woudn’t use religous teaching to line my cat’s litter box, let alone take them to heart.

@SeventhSense The question asked us for our personal opinion about whether we would use “personal experience” (which I think we can agree means religious teachings in the context of this question) and Harmony gave it.

@Ivan
It was not her personal opinion that was at issue but the inflammatory way in which she expressed it. And I’m sure she can speak for herself.

@SeventhSense

“I’m sure she can speak for herself.”

Boy, can she ever.

Fluther, meet catgirl. You might be missing a few tentacles afterward. :>D

@SeventhSense Pardon me if I attempt to clarify the statement of a friend when she is unable to, and, at the same time, spare you from the verbal beat-down you are about to endure.

@Ivan

I think we can agree that SeventhSense has absolutely no idea of what’s about to happen.

Wile. E never did see that 2-ton Acme weight falling, did he?

stifling a laugh

@HarmonyAlexandria That’s great but I’m really not interested.. if you hadn’t noticed I’m reallly really trying to move the conversation past semantics and get to something meaningful with respect to the topic… I beg of you to let it go. =)

So let me get this straight.

Your question: “What does the term “empirical evidence” mean to you?”

Semantics: The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

So you’re not interested in semantics….but you like to ask questions and start a topic about people’s understanding of the meaning of a word…but only if they don’t get caught up in the semantics.

…makes perfect sense.

Yup.. yup.. that’s it .. right there…. I give up.. you people are impossible…. lol

lol, i’m glad I was able to witness a thread like this from this end. i’ve made threads that turned out this way before on other forums.

we need a term for these sort of discussions where the question you’re trying to ask doesn’t get heard by the people you’re asking. they end up answering a different question than you intended for them to answer.

i think that’s all that’s going on here, @NaturalMineralWater, you think you asked something simple and understandable but it’s actually something quite easy to misinterpret.

I did in fact answer the question she intended for us to answer in an earlier comment, by the way.

Everything involving written communication (like fluther) requires that those taking part have some reasonably close understanding of the meaning of the words written (as many words have more than one meaning, then we need to agree on which meaning we are using). The more we diverge in this regard, the more we fail to communicate.

We simply cannot effectively challenge each others ideas unless, and until, we first cooperate with regards to the rules of language (grammar, spelling, and yes vocabulary). We didn’t get past this first hurdle in this post because the poster mistakenly saw the semantic discussion as a side issue (even dismissing the extremely helpful contribution of HarmonyAlexandria), rather than as a necessary precursor to useful discussion.

especially a discussion formulated around an issue of semantics