question about empricial proof

[metacrock]

I am arguing with an atheist who says that empirical data is the only valid form of knowledge. He says empirical means observable. So I say I agree to an extent, there's more to it than that, but that will do. However, there are certain unobservable things that science accepts. such the big bang. He says the big bang is empirical. of cousre he also I' says i'm extremely stuipd for not knowing that.

I say well the BB there is emircal evidence that suggets it, but it is not in actual fact an empircally derived notion, tis' theoetical wtih empirical evidence backing it up. He I'm extremely stupid for thinking this and empirical also means "this is the only kind of thing that can exist."

He says anyting that isn't proved by emprical means is false and doesn't exist. oddly enough when asked to prove that empirical data is true by empircal means he says well this is derived logic, that's the only thing that can be.

Now my question:

do you have a gun?

where do you go to end it all?

[eckadimmock]

So entire disciplines, such as history, literature and languages therefore do not constitute knowledge?

Empirical data in social sciences (where I have the most experience) is OK for large numbers of people and showing trends, but misses a lot of finer tuned information. Usually, too, it has to be based on qualitative data. All those personality tests and skill measurements start with asking questions to identify common threads.

[Al Moritz]

Dec 4, 2008 3:42:53 GMT metacrock said:

I am arguing with an atheist who says that empirical data is the only valid form of knowledge. He says empirical means observable.

Why this confusion of terms? Science is based on observation and experiment. Let's leave out the term "empirical".

So I say I agree to an extent, there's more to it than that, but that will do. However, there are certain unobservable things that science accepts. such the big bang. He says the big bang is empirical. of cousre he also I' says i'm extremely stuipd for not knowing that.

I say well the BB there is emircal evidence that suggets it, but it is not in actual fact an empircally derived notion, tis' theoetical wtih empirical evidence backing it up. He I'm extremely stupid for thinking this

Well, in fact, you are the one who is right, in the sense that science is theory-driven. A theory in science is a generalization, based on many observations and experiments, by which scientific facts are explained – like the atomic theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, to name a few examples. Or, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, in science a theory is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.”

However, I would say that, based on observation and theory, we can be 99 % certain that the Big Bang is a fact. Thus you can't say (in these your words) "the BB is not an actual fact". But yes, we haven't directly observed the Big Bang, yet the sum of observational data strongly points to it; this sum of data can hardly be explained any other way.

It is good to be a science-minded enthusiast, but your discussion partner, who apparently is not a scientist himself, needs to properly inform himself about the topic that he uses as a "weapon". He needs to be careful not to overplay the science card and be arrogant about it. In any case, he needs to work on straightening out his concepts.

[Al Moritz]

Dec 4, 2008 8:15:14 GMT Al Moritz said:

Why this confusion of terms? Science is based on observation and experiment. Let's leave out the term "empirical".

I have to correct myself here. "Empirical sciences" is an official term. The fact that English is not my native language sometimes plays tricks on me.