(August 5, 2010 at 7:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: Why not? Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. So basically if your statement is true, no evidence is evidence.Science uses a combination of logical arguementation based on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review to make claims. An unproven hypothosis could be formulated (like M-theory) based on evidence and startlingly breathtaking mathmatics to make a case, so a hypothosis might be considered to be 'non-empirical evidence' - but we don't call it that. The term is self-defeating because it is technically an oxy-moron. That's why it's called a hypothosis. It's a logical arguement not based on any direct evidence.
Other logical arguements are called just that - somtimes with their own terminology, but you don't go around telling people you have 'evidence without proof' because most people will tell you that evidence without proof isn't.
(August 5, 2010 at 7:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: True, you cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it, but it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Non-empirical proof is an oxymoron. It is only an oxymoron in your mind because you think that "non-empirical" cannot possibly be evidence, when it can.
One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am".
Technically speaking, that is empirical evidence.
The ability to think can and has been tested in humans and many other creatures. It's how we've found out that some creatures who can't actually speak the worlds "I thnk, therefore I am" are thinking creatures, like Chimpanzees, dolphins, and octopi (if that's the plural form of octopus.)
I think the confusion here is just that
a) Empirical Evidence has a wider definition than you may suspect and
b) What you call 'non-empirical evidence' is usually just called something else. "Logical arguement" is a good term for what I think you may be going for, but there are synonyms for that term as well.
Fr0d0:
As I've already pointed out, the terminology has a set definition. If it doesn't fit that terminology, then that word or set of words do not describe the term you're looking for. It is black and white for the same reason we have a language where terms mean something - sometimes very specific and sometimes very general.
The reason math and morality do not require empirical evidence is because they are entirely human constructs that can, in a sense, not be proven right or wrong based on empirical evidence.
Morality is almost the definition of a social normality and acceptability and it can change over time depending on the attitudes of people. For example, our society in modern times treat women like equal people far more than we ever did two thousand years ago, when they were little better than trade goods.
What is right or wrong cannot be "proven" in any sense of the term like I can prove that Proxima Centari is four and a half light years away from earth.
Math is also another construct mostly as as system of measurement of physical reality based on a logical construct and arguementation. For example, I can proove that there are three rocks in a pile, but I can't proove that the number 'three' exists as anything except a concept.
