Non-existence

[Jon Paul]

Is it now? Would you care to point to a genuine scientific paper (even a an article in a reasonably reputable popular science magazine) to support that claim? As I believe I said ... "empirical equivalence" is a term that seems to be intimately associated with philosophy and metaphysics ... it has nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with science (nor with any comparison between the ideas of 2 scientists).

No, it is not. It is a term which has to do with what empirical data and predictions a theory deals with and makes. I gave the example of Copenhagist arealism versus Bohmian ontologism in quantum mechanics, two interpretations, one which doesn't affirm the existence of reality, even denies it, another which does affirm the existence of reality. Yet they are entirely equivalent when it comes to the empirical data they are interpreting, and the observational predictions they make.

Nothing is wrong with a lack of empiricism but a lack of measurable and verifiable data CANNOT be used as evidence for anything ... that is the problem. Empirical data can be verified, empirical data can be measured, empirical data is the core of science and science/math are the only things that have ever been shown to work.

But empirical data doesn't say anything about whether arealist Copenhagists are right that there is no reality, or whether ontologist Bohmists are right that there is one.

The rest of your post is metaphysical garbage.

Now I'm sure you are using "metaphysical" as a straw man.

But my post is not "metaphysical" in the sense you are using the word: my post is about different theories of actual science.

The fun is that you don't realise you are doing metaphysics when you claim that there is a reality. Because there is no mandate for that in science. It's an interpretation you have bring TO the empirical data you have, and that in spite that the same empirical data could perfectly well be explained by an arealist interpretation.