em·pir·i·cal
adjective
- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
“they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument”
This is the definition I’m using.
So are you arguing that Jim Clyburn isn’t observable?
What did you personally observe Jim Clyburn doing, when did you observe it and how does this relate to your Friend/Enemy hypothesis? Also how was this documentation done?
Are you sure you want to do this? Do you really want argue that empirical evidence can only be what you personally observed?
That’s not what I’m doing.
Well let’s check real quick.
You can cite sources. But it is you who is stating the veracity of your friend/enemy hypothesis.
If that needs clarification.
Are you unfamiliar with those American individuals (Jackson, Tweed, Long, Clyburn) or the existence of machine politics in Chicago and NYC because you aren’t American? Or is it the foreign cases I mentioned?
Did you buy a funny hat yet?
Every religious leader needs a funny hat.
Sad, many such cases.
Also, have you decided on a title?
That’s also important.
Yeah, I was thinking after we take over I could be a Viscount. I thought Duke might be too ambitious.
It would be useless to cite sources for social science (or theology) drivel for the purposes of determining if something being cited is useful or true in a generalized or generalizable senses.
All one can do by citing sources in social science or theology contexts if provide evidence someone else said something previously that one is referencing, but that in no way can prove whether the thing said or not is true or useful in a generalizable sense.
I can cite and provide a link to an astrology horoscope a month ago, to prove that I faithfully repeated the horoscope, but that does not mean the horoscope was predictive beyond random chance, nor that it is generalizably predictive or useful in other contexts and time periods.
1 Like
Yah that’s definitely culty enough. Duke sounds lame in comparison
What if a man transitions into Wing Chun Kung Fu system?
Is this a real question?
I would hope anyone who grew up in the US and made it through K12 knows who Boss Tweed and Andrew Jackson are. That’s like asking for a citation that the current constitution was ratified in 1788 or that it wasn’t the first constitution of post war America. Or I guess asking for a citation that the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. For an American who took history classes in public schools this should be common knowledge.
Maybe knowing who Huey Long is requires some more specialized education and knowledge. I can again point you to the book on the Iran case, “Religious Statecraft” by Mohammad Tabaar but I don’t think it reasonable to expect you to purchase and read a book over a casual forum conversation.
Would you advocate burning the heretics?
This is why you shouldn’t get so deep into edgy internet atheism. No, I don’t want to immolate people who disagree with me about which framework for politics and power is the most useful. But being histrionic like that sure makes me want you to not be allowed to vote.
I get it.
You don’t like jokes unless it’s the form of a captioned picture.
Anything else is beneath you
You are The Viscount afterall