Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Like I said, the problem is you don't understand what "empirical" means, and your epistemology is narrow to the point of being useless.
Mods: would you mind moving this whole conversation to a new thread? I'll write a longer response to you later, I'm going to play mini-golf right now :P
Pretty sure I know what "empirical evidence" means, and so does everyone else here, which is why I balked at the term.
Upthread, a poster claimed there is empirical evidence the job market is discriminatory, and anyone who challenged that evidence is either racist or stupid. This, of course, implies the evidence is empirically measured and the issue is scientifically settled, just like the mass of the planet, or who won the last election
.
And of course, you as a scientist, know the difference between direct, empirical evidence, and a theory that hopes to be proven (or rather, not proven wrong) by empirical evidence. Therefore, you also know it's neither a racist nor stupid thing to question such evidence, the studies, and test the theory fully, in fact it is the smart and scientific thing to do. You do know this, right? Because I think that is a much better conversation.