What is empirical evidence?

[Speakpigeon]

What is empirical evidence?

Maybe it would help if we give concrete examples of empirical proofs and non-empirical proofs.

First example, dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions are empirical evidence of how words are used and of what they mean.

So, to know what the word “empirical” means, we can look at the empirical evidence provided by a dictionary definition of what the word “empirical” means:

empirical
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Second example of empirical evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you look into your bathroom and there is no evidence of any man-eating dragon, you take this as evidence there is no man-eating dragon. The few people who don’t are usually regarded as being insane, suggesting this is something most of us do and do even without thinking about it. It’s obvious, although again you’ll find people who don’t understand the idea.

Third example of empirical evidence. My own subjective experience is empirical evidence. If I feel pain, I will infer there’s something wrong somewhere in my body. And again, I assume that’s something nearly all of us do. We all take the feeling of pain as evidence there’s a real something. And science helps us understand why. The feeling of pain is scientifically accepted as being in normal conditions the result of the perception of some actual state or condition present in your own body, so we can talk of pain as the feeling resulting from the perception of harm or injury, which is called “nociception” (and not “perception of pain” as some dictionaries put it).

Fourth example of empirical evidence. I can use my own logical intuitions as empirical evidence to work out a method of logical calculus. I could do it, but it seems clear, although I accept this is debatable, that most methods of logic ever published have been developed on the basis of the logical intuitions people have had, starting with Aristotle and the few philosophers who, prior to Aristotle, discussed specific logical relations (without necessarily calling them as such). An apparent counterexample would be the definition of material implication, at least to the extent that you take material implication as a logical relation (I don’t), by mathematicians at the beginning the 20th century (essentially Frege and Russell initially).

And we have empirical evidence that people routinely use their own logical intuitions as empirical evidence, for example in the descriptions mathematicians make of the way they rely on their own intuitions to prove mathematical conjectures true. As I understand it, every proof, by mathematician or by theorem prover, is ultimately based on the intuition of the specialists, even when they are ostensibly based on a set of logical truths, since logical truths have accepted as such since the Antiquity on the basis of the intuitions the specialists had and on that reported by other people. Such intuitions include for example the logical truth “If it is true that it rains and it is true that I am hungry, then it is true that it rains”. Tell me if you think this isn’t obviously true.

And then, non-empirical evidence. Here, I’ll give just two examples.

One, that you don’t see a dragon is empirical evidence, but it is not empirical evidence that there is an invisible dragon. And it may well be evident to you that there is an invisible dragon. So, this in itself would be empirical evidence. But, that you don’t see a dragon is not evidence that there is an invisible dragon.

Second, that there are people who believe in God is empirical evidence but not empirical evidence that God exists.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

If the observation is personal it is an experience of a phenomenon rather than an empirical experience.

 Scientific method

In particular take  Introspection. In recent developments authors suggest psyvchologists accept this form of observation.

The more recently established cognitive psychology movement has to some extent accepted introspection's usefulness in the study of psychological phenomena, though generally only in experiments pertaining to internal thought conducted under experimental conditions. For example, in the "think aloud protocol", investigators cue participants to speak their thoughts aloud in order to study an active thought process without forcing an individual to comment on the process itself

Actually the cite describes a method that tells us us little of actual thought. Rather it provides individual reports of what one thinks one is thinking, a self referencing so circular as to be merely a phenomenon.

Empirical observation is more than rule based observation. it is observation by or of many divorcing the observer from the observation as much as possible. It links observations of material and observer reports to known processes such as reference to mass, spectrum, and motion, never resorting to self reporting of any sort.

For instance a psychophysical observation would be in a structured form where two signals are presented, one one a standard of some sort and the other one with some physical dimension altered in a structure way in a fixed group of observations in random sequence of condition presentations. For instance five levels of interval between two tone markers would be contrasted with two tone markers with no interval between tones in sa series of observations.

 

[Torin]

I define evidence as "an observation that has been integrated to its cause." I seem to recall reading this definition in the Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff's book The DIM Hypothesis, although I can't find it in that book now. Wherever it came from, it sounds right and fits with my background knowledge.

As an example, take the evidence for evolution from biogeography. Island species tend to resemble the species on the nearby mainland, but the island species are distinct from the species on the mainland and from each other. The island species are all adapted to various niches on the island. Moreover, the species we find on islands are invariably small organisms that could have been blown onto the island by the wind or carried over on debris, or could have swum to the island from the mainland. This has been observed hundreds of times.

The only explanation of these observations (that is, the cause to which scientists integrate them as evidence) is that the species on the island were carried over and then evolved into the diversity we see on islands today. A concrete instance of this is Darwin's finches, which as everyone knows were part of the original inspiration for the theory of evolution.

Thoughts?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I define evidence as "an observation that has been integrated to its cause." I seem to recall reading this definition in the Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff's book The DIM Hypothesis, although I can't find it in that book now. Wherever it came from, it sounds right and fits with my background knowledge.

As an example, take the evidence for evolution from biogeography. Island species tend to resemble the species on the nearby mainland, but the island species are distinct from the species on the mainland and from each other. The island species are all adapted to various niches on the island. Moreover, the species we find on islands are invariably small organisms that could have been blown onto the island by the wind or carried over on debris, or could have swum to the island from the mainland. This has been observed hundreds of times.

The only explanation of these observations (that is, the cause to which scientists integrate them as evidence) is that the species on the island were carried over and then evolved into the diversity we see on islands today. A concrete instance of this is Darwin's finches, which as everyone knows were part of the original inspiration for the theory of evolution.

Thoughts?

Oh, Gosh, we're suddenly upgrading to articulate conversation. I'm not used to that. I will need to adjust.

The suggestion that you could "integrate an observation to its cause" is a bit of metaphysical nonsense based on equivocation. What people usually mean by "cause" is some real thing, be it an object or an event. It's good to be able to mean that, but that doesn't mean that we can observe any causes as such. What we know are observations, whether something is a cause is essentially metaphysical speculation. Again, it's good to be able to speculate, but the notion of "integration" suggests we can get our hand on the causes and somehow articulate them with our observations, and that's the metaphysical nonsense.

What your example shows is that science collects observations and tries to produce logically articulated models encompassing as much of these observations as possible. I don't see any actual integration of causes there. So, I will guess that what is meant by your definition is that models try to interpret all observations as effects of causes, causes which will remain essentially a metaphysical assumption. Sometimes, an observation will be assumed to be the observation of the cause, much as we do ourselves as we go through our day, and sometimes the cause will remain hypothetical until further notice, much as we all do in our lives when we can't pinpoint and observe the source of our troubles. So, science essentially does what rational people do without even thinking about it, except it does it in a much more systematic way, using very expensive instruments, checking and re-checking the observations, discussing about the methods and techniques used etc. Well, it's just better, not anything fundamentally different. People were already doing it before the Enlightenment, but after it, it was certainly allowed to develop to a scale unknown before.

It's also clearly wrong to say that a theory is "the only explanation". It may be the only explanation we're smart enough to produce at the time, but that's very different. Newton was incapable of conceiving of General Relativity, and yet it was also, already at the time, a valid explanation. Scientists have come up with a cop out. Explanations have to be minimally metaphysical in that they should assume as little as possible that isn't evidenced by observation. So, they are effectively only looking for explanations that are as simple as possible. Nothing like the "only explanation", then.

Still, that's what scientists do, but here again, it's no different in principle from what we all do. Some people may look like they are making it needlessly complicated, but this is mistaken. Most people are logical, but we don't have the same evidence, and therefore we don't get to the same conclusions. And the evidence most people have is the one they get by themselves, using their own private perception powers. They usually don't even have any direct evidence that what scientists do is correct.

Still, I would take your point that integration of all observations into a logically coherent causal theory is what defines very good empirical evidence, if that what you mean.

Yet, I don't think that disqualifies any of the examples I provided of empirical evidence. It's just that the standard of proof is much higher in science and that scientific evidence carries much more authority than any other within society at large. Yet, science itself does not yield greater certainty. Any idiot is more certain of what he believes he is looking at than any scientists is certain of the validity of his pet theory. I am more certain of being busy replying to your post than scientists are certain of the reality of the Big Bang. Subjectivity has to be objectivised as much as possible in science, but it can't be just eliminated or even coherently denied. All objective facts inevitably are also, first and foremost, subjective facts.

I haven't had to ridicule your posts yet, so please try to keep it that way.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

It should be obvious from the dictionary definition.

Water freezes an empirical observation. The Earth goes round the sun. Subject to observation.

If you have ever watched crime dramas, a conviction by circumstantial evidence.
Thought processes below behavior are conjecture regardless of how good a theory may be.
Psychological correlations beyond observable behavior is all circumstantial. Correlation of behavior to thoughts is subjective and circumstantial.

 

[fromderinside]

It should be obvious from the dictionary definition.

Water freezes an empirical observation. The Earth goes round the sun. Subject to observation.

If you have ever watched crime dramas, a conviction by circumstantial evidence.
Thought processes below behavior are conjecture regardless of how good a theory may be.
Psychological correlations beyond observable behavior is all circumstantial. Correlation of behavior to thoughts is subjective and circumstantial.

When behavior is neural activity within a sense or effector channel or tract the processing "is responding" is much more than conjecture.

I guess for the last we need to give up designing hearing aids, glasses and the like because responses making up sensory threshold studies are just conjecture.

 

[steve_bank]

It should be obvious from the dictionary definition.

Water freezes an empirical observation. The Earth goes round the sun. Subject to observation.

If you have ever watched crime dramas, a conviction by circumstantial evidence.
Thought processes below behavior are conjecture regardless of how good a theory may be.
Psychological correlations beyond observable behavior is all circumstantial. Correlation of behavior to thoughts is subjective and circumstantial.

When behavior is neural activity within a sense or effector channel or tract the processing "is responding" is much more than conjecture.

I guess for the last we need to give up designing hearing aids, glasses and the like because responses making up sensory threshold studies are just conjecture.

It all has an objective physical basis, but correlation between complex chains of thoughts resulting in words and actions IMO is subjective. I have heard psychology called a soft science.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have heard psychology called a soft science.

I have heard... now that's very good evidence.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The suggestion that you could "integrate an observation to its cause" is a bit of metaphysical nonsense based on equivocation. What people usually mean by "cause" is some real thing, be it an object or an event. It's good to be able to mean that, but that doesn't mean that we can observe any causes as such.

We can. The question is, can we trust (or verify) that the observations are accurately reflecting something objective (i.e., are not merely figments of our imagination)? Hence such processes as the so-called "scientific method" and reliance on consensus/testing and the like. Iow, it's a condition well known and accounted for to the best of our abilities.

In general, however, if one does not accept--as a primary state--that one's senses are in some measure accurately reflecting an external reality, then the concept of "evidence" is already moot, so there's no real point in discussing it. All that's happened then is removing one's self from the equation.

But to do that also means one can't do anything at all, because without a basic acceptance of the notion that we are all subjectively experiencing an objective reality, there is no point in doing anything at all. One should just hook up to VR and be done with it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The suggestion that you could "integrate an observation to its cause" is a bit of metaphysical nonsense based on equivocation. What people usually mean by "cause" is some real thing, be it an object or an event. It's good to be able to mean that, but that doesn't mean that we can observe any causes as such.

We can.

You would have to justify this extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim because nobody could justify it. Still, you can try.

And you ignored in the same post my detailed explanation of what I think is the only kind of integration really taking place:

What your example shows is that science collects observations and tries to produce logically articulated models encompassing as much of these observations as possible. I don't see any actual integration of causes there. So, I will guess that what is meant by your definition is that models try to interpret all observations as effects of causes, causes which will remain essentially a metaphysical assumption. Sometimes, an observation will be assumed to be the observation of the cause, much as we do ourselves as we go through our day, and sometimes the cause will remain hypothetical until further notice, much as we all do in our lives when we can't pinpoint and observe the source of our troubles. So, science essentially does what rational people do without even thinking about it, except it does it in a much more systematic way, using very expensive instruments, checking and re-checking the observations, discussing about the methods and techniques used etc. Well, it's just better, not anything fundamentally different. People were already doing it before the Enlightenment, but after it, it was certainly allowed to develop to a scale unknown before.

So, if you want to address the question of integration, you would need to address my point here.

For now, all you've been able to articulate is: We can.

The question is, can we trust (or verify) that the observations are accurately reflecting something objective (i.e., are not merely figments of our imagination)? Hence such processes as the so-called "scientific method" and reliance on consensus/testing and the like. Iow, it's a condition well known and accounted for to the best of our abilities.

All observations are intrinsically subjective. There is no observation that would be objective in itself. Objectivity is at best a metaphysical construct whereby you take what subjective facts you know at face value and infer from that an objective reality obeying to rules. So you start by accepting that there is an objective tree on the basis of the subjective fact that you have the impression you are seeing a tree. And once you accept that kind of things as objective, you're bound by the rules of this objective world you've accepted as real. So, each scientist accepts to take seriously what he takes to be other scientists, what he takes to be what they say, what he takes to be the evidence they report etc. And so, you get to build a complex model of this hypothetical objective world, model which is nonetheless entirely somehow within your own mind and hence entirely subjective.

So, contrary to what you fluffily say here, the question isn't at all whether our observations reflect something objective, but whether our subjective model of an objective world reflects reality. And there, we're right into the hard problem. If you can prove that, you can explain the relation between our subjective consciousness and the physical world postulated by our subjective model.

In general, however, if one does not accept--as a primary state--that one's senses are in some measure accurately reflecting an external reality, then the concept of "evidence" is already moot, so there's no real point in discussing it. All that's happened then is removing one's self from the equation.

But to do that also means one can't do anything at all, because without a basic acceptance of the notion that we are all subjectively experiencing an objective reality, there is no point in doing anything at all. One should just hook up to VR and be done with it.

I certainly don't accept that our subjective model of an objective world could possibly accurately reflect reality. I don't accept that we know anything about reality beyond the bit of reality which is our subjective experience. I certainly don't have any good reason, logic and facts, to do that.

However, it is also a fact of subjective life that you accept that there is material world, beginning with your own body and the tree in the garden. You accept that and you couldn't deny it. It's just one of those facts.

However, the question is whether our metaphysical model makes sense. The metaphysical model of people here and elsewhere, what I call hardcore materialists, who deny the reality of our conscious experience, is just logically incoherent. My model is coherent and I do believe there is a reality beyond the brute facts of my subjectivity. No problem at all. Why would I talk to you, do you think?

The problem, though, is not science itself, it's the hardcore materialist ideology and mentality that literally mindlessly feeds on science, mentality best caricatured here by DBT and fromderinside.
EB

 

[ronburgundy]

What is empirical evidence?

Maybe it would help if we give concrete examples of empirical proofs and non-empirical proofs.

First example, dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions are empirical evidence of how words are used and of what they mean.

So, to know what the word “empirical” means, we can look at the empirical evidence provided by a dictionary definition of what the word “empirical” means:

empirical
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

But note that those definitions really don't say much other than that the observation somehow "supports" or "verifies" a conclusion or hypothesis. So, then we must specific what those terms refer to. That where concepts like predictive and explanatory power and precision come in. An observed event is evidence for an idea to the extent that idea predicted an event that was not predicted otherwise, and/or can explain an event that cannot be explained otherwise, and the prediction is improbable by random chance (that is where precision come in b/c the more precise the prediction, the more possibilities it does not include and thus the less probable that one of the possibilties included in the prediction would be observed by mere chance.

Second example of empirical evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you look into your bathroom and there is no evidence of any man-eating dragon, you take this as evidence there is no man-eating dragon. The few people who don’t are usually regarded as being insane, suggesting this is something most of us do and do even without thinking about it. It’s obvious, although again you’ll find people who don’t understand the idea.

Note that in your own example, it is not simply the absence of observing a dragon that makes it evidence, but the fact that you looked for it, and that the theory of "A dragon in your bathroom." presumes that such a massive beast would be easily visible, and knowledge of your bathroom's small size and limited places to hide implies that even one quick look would be sufficient to conclude that the dragon could not be there without you seeing it. A failure to do a careful and thorough search is often a plausible explanation for the absence of having observed a thing, but in your scenario a thorough search is easy so the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. All of these factors relate to the issues I raised above. The conclusion of "no dragon" predicts that you would not have seen it, plus there are no alternative theories that presume a dragon in your bathroom which would predict/explain that you would not see a dragon. In contrast, you didn't look in everyone's bathroom, so the fact that you did not see a dragon in everyone else's bathroom is not evidence of no dragon in their bathrooms. It is a meaningless absence of evidence resulting from failing to use observation methods that would allow for inferring something from a dragon not being observed. In sum, absence of evidence only counts as evidence of absence under narrow conditions defined by the methods of observation and what is implied by the existence of the thing in question.

Third example of empirical evidence. My own subjective experience is empirical evidence. If I feel pain, I will infer there’s something wrong somewhere in my body. And again, I assume that’s something nearly all of us do. We all take the feeling of pain as evidence there’s a real something. And science helps us understand why. The feeling of pain is scientifically accepted as being in normal conditions the result of the perception of some actual state or condition present in your own body, so we can talk of pain as the feeling resulting from the perception of harm or injury, which is called “nociception” (and not “perception of pain” as some dictionaries put it).

Here again, the degree to which a subjective experience is evidence is dependent on additional qualifications for the definition of evidence I raised above. With pain, it is a rather simple one-dimensional feature where the sensory info comes from within the neural pathways and thus is less subject to the contextual factors that can corrupt the information or open the door for alternative explanations. Also, pain is something nearly all people attempt to avoid and not experience. Thus, the possibility that a person's biases would manufacture the experience of pain when there was no objective cause is low. In contrast many if not most other subjective experiences are dependent on flawed context-dependent sensory inputs from the outside world and have complex multi-dimensions to them that allow for many possible errors and biases to shape our experience and make it deviate from the objective properties of the external objects they refer to. That makes many subjective experiences weaker evidence, with some being so weak as to be near-zero evidence when the observation conditions are poor and the probable bias is high.

All empirical evidence depends on observation and thus upon subjective sensory inputs (even when reading out the numbers on a machine that measures a variable "objectively"). That is why the rigors of science are so critical, b/c they apply methods that reduce the alternative explanations for the subjective experience and thus make the experience stronger evidence for what actually happened external to those sensory inputs.

Fourth example of empirical evidence. I can use my own logical intuitions as empirical evidence to work out a method of logical calculus. I could do it, but it seems clear, although I accept this is debatable, that most methods of logic ever published have been developed on the basis of the logical intuitions people have had, starting with Aristotle and the few philosophers who, prior to Aristotle, discussed specific logical relations (without necessarily calling them as such). An apparent counterexample would be the definition of material implication, at least to the extent that you take material implication as a logical relation (I don’t), by mathematicians at the beginning the 20th century (essentially Frege and Russell initially).

And we have empirical evidence that people routinely use their own logical intuitions as empirical evidence, for example in the descriptions mathematicians make of the way they rely on their own intuitions to prove mathematical conjectures true. As I understand it, every proof, by mathematician or by theorem prover, is ultimately based on the intuition of the specialists, even when they are ostensibly based on a set of logical truths, since logical truths have accepted as such since the Antiquity on the basis of the intuitions the specialists had and on that reported by other people. Such intuitions include for example the logical truth “If it is true that it rains and it is true that I am hungry, then it is true that it rains”. Tell me if you think this isn’t obviously true.

Hmmm. If there is not sensory input (i.e., observation), I don't think it qualifies as empirical evidence. Logic is a closed system, meaning their is no new input to use to evaluate a claim. Rather you simply take a set of already knowns (premises) and infer what must be true given them. The whole value of empirical evidence is that it is an open system that provides new inputs, so that all existing "knowns" can be continuously re-evaluated, and logic reapplies to the modified knowns to revise the conclusions.

And then, non-empirical evidence. Here, I’ll give just two examples.

One, that you don’t see a dragon is empirical evidence, but it is not empirical evidence that there is an invisible dragon. And it may well be evident to you that there is an invisible dragon. So, this in itself would be empirical evidence. But, that you don’t see a dragon is not evidence that there is an invisible dragon.

Second, that there are people who believe in God is empirical evidence but not empirical evidence that God exists.
EB

Just to clarify, by "non-empirical evidence" you do NOT mean evidence that is non-empirical (which is what I would say that logical arguments are), but rather you mean things are not evidence, empirical or otherwise?

With that in mind, I agree. The lack of seeing a dragon is not evidence of an invisible dragon, precisely for the same reasons that determine whether not seeing a dragon is evidence of no dragon. While an invisible dragon does predict not seeing it, the exact opposite claim of "no invisible dragon" makes the same prediction. Thus, there claim of an invisible dragon lacks predictive power relative to the alternatives. The only way that not seeing a dragon would be evidence of an invisible dragon would be if you already had sufficient evidence that a dragon was definitely in your bathroom, then not seeing him would be evidence he was invisible, presuming you could rule out him having escaped.

As for God, again, the lack of evidence for God provided by belief in God is due to their being many other plausible ways to explain the observation that people belief in God. Thus the theory that God exists lacks explanatory power relative to the alternatives.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You would have to justify this extraordinary claim.

You said:

that doesn't mean that we can observe any causes as such

We can "observe" anything and everything. That's not the question. Hence my immediately following clarification:

The question is, can we trust (or verify) that the observations are accurately reflecting something objective (i.e., are not merely figments of our imagination)? Hence such processes as the so-called "scientific method" and reliance on consensus/testing and the like. Iow, it's a condition well known and accounted for to the best of our abilities.

Clear now?

All observations are intrinsically subjective *snip*

You don't need to post things everyone already knows.

So, contrary to what you fluffily say here, the question isn't at all whether our observations reflect something objective, but whether our subjective model of an objective world reflects reality.

You just said the exact same thing. "Our observations reflect something objective" is the exact same thing as saying "Our subjective model of an objective world reflects reality" which is the exact same thing as what I said: the question is, can we trust (or verify) that the observations are accurately reflecting something objective (i.e., are not merely figments of our imagination).

I certainly don't accept that our subjective model of an objective world could possibly accurately reflect reality.

How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?

Regardless, then, you're done. Never use a computer again and just rock yourself to sleep at night with your eyes closed.

 

[PyramidHead]

I favor the account of Arnold Zuboff, who links empirical reasoning to probability. Basically, empirical evidence is an observation that, in accounting for it with some hypothesis or another, lends each hypothesis a degree of probability that lets you select among them on that basis. Empirical reasoning is just deferring to whatever hypothesis makes what was observed the least improbable.

So, if you see a red Ford Mustang drive by, there are several hypotheses that are automatically favorable based on that observation. For one thing, you can justifiably believe that the Ford Mustang as a model is indeed available from the dealership in red. Of course, it could be the case that it isn't, and the red one you just saw was being driven by a person who got a custom paint-job. But that would make your observation of this car, which might be the only such car with a custom paint job in a wide area, less probable than it would have been if red was just one of the factory colors on offer. Therefore, based only upon the fact that you happened to observe it in an arbitrary situation that wasn't set up beforehand, you can confidently assert that it's more likely than not that the Ford Mustang comes in red. You could be wrong, obviously. But over many such situations, using the same reasoning each time, the number of times you were wrong would be vastly outnumbered by the times your assertion based on the evidence was correct.

This idea of empirical evidence rests on the truism that it is necessarily improbable that something improbable has occurred. In all cases, even if no absolute proof will ever be available, deferring to the explanation that involves the least amount of improbability in accounting for observation will be the correct strategy most of the time, and depending on the degree of improbability involved in rejecting it, close to all of the time. The more probable a hypothesis makes the observation of the evidence in comparison to its negation, the more successful the inference to that hypothesis will be.

 

[fromderinside]

It all has an objective physical basis, but correlation between complex chains of thoughts resulting in words and actions IMO is subjective. I have heard psychology called a soft science.

What does six sigma mean to you. It is a statistical probability statement yano and we've accepted it as evidence for Higgs particle. No meter, eye, ear, index, empirical observation would have to be time and place fact. So unless you are going to limit empirical to such things every thing we measure is statistically observed.

 

[fromderinside]

It all has an objective physical basis, but correlation between complex chains of thoughts resulting in words and actions IMO is subjective. I have heard psychology called a soft science.

Psychology and neuroscience aren't sciences yet since neither has an overarching theory integrating them together beyond Darwin's and Crick-Watson's organizing principles. Haven't decided yet whether neuron, transmitters, or quarks, are at the root ot information processing. Still what behavioral and neuro scientists do is science. I still think of Galton's interest in gambling as one of the starting points for behavioral-neuroscience. He's even related to Darwin!

 

[Speakpigeon]

But note that those definitions really don't say much other than that the observation somehow "supports" or "verifies" a conclusion or hypothesis.

You are making stuff up.

Please look again at the definition.

Empirical a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

See? Not one mention of the four words you used here, "supports", "verifies", "conclusion" and "hypothesis".

So, "empirical" just means relying on or derived from observation or experiment. That's not enough for you? I think this is a very important notion and it's better to have one word, "empirical", rather than use the longer expression relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

That's also how language work. If you need more than a line or two to define one word, it's probably because your definition doesn't fit with what most people mean. Open any English dictionary if you don't believe me.

So, then we must specific what those terms refer to.

Are you saying that you don't understand "rely on", "derive from", "observation", "experiment"?!

So, no, there's no reason that we would have to define those words beyond whatever definition they have in an English dictionary.

An observed event is evidence for an idea to the extent that idea predicted an event that was not predicted otherwise, and/or can explain an event that cannot be explained otherwise, and the prediction is improbable by random chance (that is where precision come in b/c the more precise the prediction, the more possibilities it does not include and thus the less probable that one of the possibilties included in the prediction would be observed by mere chance.

That's not what the word "evidence" means:

Evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

Sorry, but we're apparently not speaking the same language. Me, I speak English.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Second example of empirical evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you look into your bathroom and there is no evidence of any man-eating dragon, you take this as evidence there is no man-eating dragon. The few people who don’t are usually regarded as being insane, suggesting this is something most of us do and do even without thinking about it. It’s obvious, although again you’ll find people who don’t understand the idea.

Note that in your own example, it is not simply the absence of observing a dragon that makes it evidence, but the fact that you looked for it, and that the theory of "A dragon in your bathroom." presumes that such a massive beast would be easily visible, and knowledge of your bathroom's small size and limited places to hide implies that even one quick look would be sufficient to conclude that the dragon could not be there without you seeing it. A failure to do a careful and thorough search is often a plausible explanation for the absence of having observed a thing, but in your scenario a thorough search is easy so the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The evidence that there is no dragon in your bathroom has to be because you make an observation of your bathroom with no dragon in it. Making a visual observation will of course require you use your visual sense and therefore look at something. No dragon means no dragon as you conceive of it. "Your bathroom" will refer to what you understand to be your bathroom. Etc.

All of these factors relate to the issues I raised above. The conclusion of "no dragon" predicts that you would not have seen it, plus there are no alternative theories that presume a dragon in your bathroom which would predict/explain that you would not see a dragon. In contrast, you didn't look in everyone's bathroom, so the fact that you did not see a dragon in everyone else's bathroom is not evidence of no dragon in their bathrooms. It is a meaningless absence of evidence resulting from failing to use observation methods that would allow for inferring something from a dragon not being observed. In sum, absence of evidence only counts as evidence of absence under narrow conditions defined by the methods of observation and what is implied by the existence of the thing in question.

No, evidence of a dragon would be defined by the kind of observation used and the kind of dragon evidenced. There are no particular methods required. Obviously, methodical observation may be required but today's scientific evidence that there are Black Holes isn't as compelling as the evidence I have right now of looking at my computer.

You're making stuff up well beyond the definition of empirical and of evidence.

You're effectively trying to redact the entire Oxford English Dictionary into compliance with your scientific dogma, à la Big Brother.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Third example of empirical evidence. My own subjective experience is empirical evidence. If I feel pain, I will infer there’s something wrong somewhere in my body. And again, I assume that’s something nearly all of us do. We all take the feeling of pain as evidence there’s a real something. And science helps us understand why. The feeling of pain is scientifically accepted as being in normal conditions the result of the perception of some actual state or condition present in your own body, so we can talk of pain as the feeling resulting from the perception of harm or injury, which is called “nociception” (and not “perception of pain” as some dictionaries put it).

Here again, the degree to which a subjective experience is evidence is dependent on additional qualifications for the definition of evidence I raised above. With pain, it is a rather simple one-dimensional feature where the sensory info comes from within the neural pathways and thus is less subject to the contextual factors that can corrupt the information or open the door for alternative explanations. Also, pain is something nearly all people attempt to avoid and not experience. Thus, the possibility that a person's biases would manufacture the experience of pain when there was no objective cause is low. In contrast many if not most other subjective experiences are dependent on flawed context-dependent sensory inputs from the outside world and have complex multi-dimensions to them that allow for many possible errors and biases to shape our experience and make it deviate from the objective properties of the external objects they refer to. That makes many subjective experiences weaker evidence, with some being so weak as to be near-zero evidence when the observation conditions are poor and the probable bias is high.

All empirical evidence depends on observation and thus upon subjective sensory inputs (even when reading out the numbers on a machine that measures a variable "objectively"). That is why the rigors of science are so critical, b/c they apply methods that reduce the alternative explanations for the subjective experience and thus make the experience stronger evidence for what actually happened external to those sensory inputs.

First, all subjective experience is evidence of something. You can't get beyond this.

Second, the subjective evidence I have of looking at my keyboard is more compelling that the current scientific evidence of the existence of Black Holes.

You are confused by the necessity of having extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary claim, for Black Holes for example. But ordinary things only need ordinary evidence and, further, you're very unlikely to ever get any better. Me, I'm not going to wait for science to provide me with extraordinary evidence that I am now looking at my keyboard.

Please, try not to fuck your words every time you try to make your point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Fourth example of empirical evidence. I can use my own logical intuitions as empirical evidence to work out a method of logical calculus. I could do it, but it seems clear, although I accept this is debatable, that most methods of logic ever published have been developed on the basis of the logical intuitions people have had, starting with Aristotle and the few philosophers who, prior to Aristotle, discussed specific logical relations (without necessarily calling them as such). An apparent counterexample would be the definition of material implication, at least to the extent that you take material implication as a logical relation (I don’t), by mathematicians at the beginning the 20th century (essentially Frege and Russell initially).

And we have empirical evidence that people routinely use their own logical intuitions as empirical evidence, for example in the descriptions mathematicians make of the way they rely on their own intuitions to prove mathematical conjectures true. As I understand it, every proof, by mathematician or by theorem prover, is ultimately based on the intuition of the specialists, even when they are ostensibly based on a set of logical truths, since logical truths have accepted as such since the Antiquity on the basis of the intuitions the specialists had and on that reported by other people. Such intuitions include for example the logical truth “If it is true that it rains and it is true that I am hungry, then it is true that it rains”. Tell me if you think this isn’t obviously true.

Hmmm. If there is not sensory input (i.e., observation), I don't think it qualifies as empirical evidence. Logic is a closed system, meaning their is no new input to use to evaluate a claim.

Theories of logic are open to revision. Any theory of logic has to account for all the logical truths identified by human beings since at least Aristotle. And there is in effect an infinity of logical truths, so potentially, it is impossible to ascertain that any theory would be absolutely correct. We'll have to amend our theory of logic as we discover new logical truths. And the only source of logical truths we know of for now is the evidence of our logical intuitions as provided by the human brain. You can't have more empirical than that.

Rather you simply take a set of already knowns (premises) and infer what must be true given them. The whole value of empirical evidence is that it is an open system that provides new inputs, so that all existing "knowns" can be continuously re-evaluated, and logic reapplies to the modified knowns to revise the conclusions.

You are assuming something you can't possibly know that current theories of logic will correctly account for the new logical truths people will discover in the future. Remember, there is an infinity of them. There is potentially no end to this process. It's like discovering the future one second at a time. So far, so good, so far, so good, so far, so good... Couldn't make it more open than that even if we tried.
EB

 

[Elixir]

Third example of empirical evidence. My own subjective experience is empirical evidence. If I feel pain, I will infer there’s something wrong somewhere in my body. And again, I assume that’s something nearly all of us do. We all take the feeling of pain as evidence there’s a real something. And science helps us understand why. The feeling of pain is scientifically accepted as being in normal conditions the result of the perception of some actual state or condition present in your own body, so we can talk of pain as the feeling resulting from the perception of harm or injury, which is called “nociception” (and not “perception of pain” as some dictionaries put it).

Here again, the degree to which a subjective experience is evidence is dependent on additional qualifications for the definition of evidence I raised above. With pain, it is a rather simple one-dimensional feature where the sensory info comes from within the neural pathways and thus is less subject to the contextual factors that can corrupt the information or open the door for alternative explanations. Also, pain is something nearly all people attempt to avoid and not experience. Thus, the possibility that a person's biases would manufacture the experience of pain when there was no objective cause is low. In contrast many if not most other subjective experiences are dependent on flawed context-dependent sensory inputs from the outside world and have complex multi-dimensions to them that allow for many possible errors and biases to shape our experience and make it deviate from the objective properties of the external objects they refer to. That makes many subjective experiences weaker evidence, with some being so weak as to be near-zero evidence when the observation conditions are poor and the probable bias is high.

All empirical evidence depends on observation and thus upon subjective sensory inputs (even when reading out the numbers on a machine that measures a variable "objectively"). That is why the rigors of science are so critical, b/c they apply methods that reduce the alternative explanations for the subjective experience and thus make the experience stronger evidence for what actually happened external to those sensory inputs.

First, all subjective experience is evidence of something. You can't get beyond this.

Second, the subjective evidence I have of looking at my keyboard is more compelling that the current scientific evidence of the existence of Black Holes.

You are confused by the necessity of having extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary claim, for Black Holes for example. But ordinary things only need ordinary evidence and, further, you're very unlikely to ever get any better. Me, I'm not going to wait for science to provide me with extraordinary evidence that I am now looking at my keyboard.

This conversation makes me wonder if "empirical", "objective" and "scientific" all have different meanings. For my money, they all imply repeatable observations by more than one person. That places them in a different category from subjective evidence, where all I need is to perceive something myself and make my own determinations as to the reliability of that perception. So it is more prone to error, but also delves into areas of observation that are inaccessible by empirical or objective means. Some of that type of "information" drives most people's worldviews (e.g. religion) whether they are aware of it or not.
EB may choose to accept or reject the subjective evidence he has that he is looking at a keyboard, but that particular question would probably lend itself to repeated third party observations, if it was important enough to him to validate or falsify it that way.