"Empirical"

Ahnimus

So, We had a discussion a while back on the definition of the term "Empirical"

I wrote the editor of Merriam-Webster:

Empirical
"originating in or based on observation or experience "

The problem I have with this definition is that certain people
interpret this to mean "one's own experience" this implies
that a person's experience of Alien abduction is
"Empirical" and therefor, based on the thesaurus "Factual".

Perhaps adding something like "corraborated by external observation"

The word "empirical" can be used in this way, so your interpretation is
entirely correct. From these people's perspective, their memories of
abduction are empirical. However, the lack of corroboration usually
prevents the stories from going much farther than anecdotal status.

Remember, many words have multiple meanings. Synonyms are words that
match each other in some fundamental element of meaning. These
elements are not the sum and total of words, only one aspect of the total set
of meanings associated with a word. Thus, two words can be listed as
synonyms, but not be completely interchangeable in all circumstances.

A situation such as you describe could be considered "empirical," since it is
based on observation. This definition you included is one sense of
"empirical." However, there are others, some of which are more closely
aligned with "factual," for example "capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment." The use of "factual" generally requires the
presence of a verifiable fact, which is lacking in your example.

Daniel Brandon,
Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc.

We were both right in our use of the term "empirical", except that for it to be completely synonymous with "factual" it must be corroborated by external verification.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

I wrote the editor of Merriam-Webster:

you have too much time on your hands

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

you have too much time on your hands

Yea, that's true, but it only took me five minutes.

angelica

You're clearly referring to me, here, Ahnimus. Number one, in my words debating the word "empirical", I specifically referred to my experiences that have a factual basis. Allow me to refresh your memory from the "hominid" thread when I said:

angelica wrote:

I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours. I used to have numerous highly observable mental illness behaviours. I no longer have them. That is 100% fact.

angelica wrote:

do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS.

Not only does the medical profession back up the fact that I no longer am prescribed psychiatric medications, and that I no longer seek psychiatric care, but I also have a large amount of friends and family members who openly see that I am not being obsessive-compulsive nor delusional day in and out. I've had two counsellors nudge me out of their care and back to my life beyond counselling, because it was clear that I am competent and healthy. Also any of these individuals can corroborate that I have not displayed obsessive-compulsive or bi-polar disorder issues for numerous years. Some searching on this message board alone can corroborate the basic fact of my ongoing ability to reason every day that I've posted, for over a year, in my few thousand posts. The proof on this forum is empirical and factual. Being able to reason everyday is the opposite of being psychotic. My empirical observations are very well corroborated by varying sources outside of myself. The specific empirics I speak to are quite verifiable, unlike the person claiming an alien experience--the situation that you like to use as a "comparison, where there is NOT verification.

You say here, in this thread:

Ahnimus wrote:

We were both right in our use of the term "empirical"...

The Merriam-Webster guy said:

Daniel Brandon, Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster inc. wrote:

A situation such as you describe could be considered "empirical," since it is
based on observation. This definition you included is one sense of
"empirical." However, there are others...

Again, I point to my original words in the "hominid" thread in our original debate, where I pointed out that I understood we were both correct from the beginning:

angelica wrote:

Keep in mind that it was you who was saying my understanding of empiricism was false. I've personally known that BOTH my interpretation and yours fall under the umbrella of "emprical" all along.

I do appreciate you being honest enough to bring this issue into the open for resolution, especially when it entails admitting that my interpretations of the word are correct when at first you were adamant that they were not. I look forward to moving beyond this.

Ahnimus

Angelica....

You were saying that your personal experience was factual. Which it is not.

The fact that you overcame your OCD and whatever other problems you had. Sure that's factual. But your experiences that "cured" you are not.

Purple Hawk

empirical means developing a hypothesis and testing it, and attempting to falsify it. simple as that.

you can't do that with "i know someone who said this" or "I've met people that say this." those are case studies and anectdotal evidence.

Empirical analysis involves developing concepts, finding out ways to measure them, then testing them using statistical analysis.

As for the cure of OCD...what is it? Damn, I need to get my hands on that.

Ahnimus

Purple Hawk wrote:

empirical means developing a hypothesis and testing it, and attempting to falsify it. simple as that.

you can't do that with "i know someone who said this" or "I've met people that say this." those are case studies and anectdotal evidence.

Empirical analysis involves developing concepts, finding out ways to measure them, then testing them using statistical analysis.

As for the cure of OCD...what is it? Damn, I need to get my hands on that.

Angelica was saying she had some kind of OBE or other impossible experience that cured her OCD. I'm sure she can clarify it.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica....

You were saying that your personal experience was factual. Which it is not.

The fact that you overcame your OCD and whatever other problems you had. Sure that's factual. But your experiences that "cured" you are not.

I always stand behind my personal spiritual experiences because I have experienced them. However I don't try to prove them. I frankly don't care who believes me or not. That goes for today, last week and a year ago.

In the debate on empiricism, I specifically said: "I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours."

As far as me saying my personal experience was factual, I did and: I specifically referred to observable experiences, like when I stand up, it is factual. If I smile, it is factual. If I am held at gunpoint and I state it as so, that is factual. Go back and check. Not once did I try to "prove" a spiritual experience. I'm not surprised that you read into what I actually said, though.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I always stand behind my personal spiritual experiences because I have experienced them. However I don't try to prove them. I frankly don't care who believes me or not. That goes for today, last week and a year ago.

In the debate on empiricism, I specifically said: "I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours."

As far as me saying my personal experience was factual, I did and: I specifically referred to observable experiences, like when I stand up, it is factual. If I smile, it is factual. If I am held at gunpoint and I state it as so, that is factual. Go back and check. Not once did I try to "prove" a spiritual experience. I'm not surprised that you read into what I actually said, though.

We were discussing Free-will, you argued that it must exist because of your subjective experience which is not factual. That's how the argument started. If you are saying now that your subjective experience is not factual and therefor have no argument in support of Free-will. Then fine and I fully admit that I was unaware of the non-factual use of the word Empirical.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

We were discussing Free-will, you argued that it must exist because of your subjective experience which is not factual. That's how the argument started. If you are saying now that your subjective experience is not factual and therefor have no argument in support of Free-will. Then fine and I fully admit that I was unaware of the non-factual use of the word Empirical.

What I am saying is that in fact, I have had numerous spiritual experiences. I'm fully aware that these experiences did not happen in the physical world, and therefore I wouldn't think of trying to prove them by any physical level means. However, I speak about them, and I stand behind that they are my experiences. I understand the connections between such experiences and my healing of numerous mental illnesses, disorders, addictions, etc.

Here is what I originally said in the free will thread: "Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented."

Again, I don't try to prove the spiritual.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What I am saying is that in fact, I have had numerous spiritual experiences. I'm fully aware that these experiences did not happen in the physical world, and therefore I wouldn't think of trying to prove them by any physical level means. However, I speak about them, and I stand behind that they are my experiences. I understand the connections between such experiences and my healing of numerous mental illnesses, disorders, addictions, etc.

Here is what I originally said in the free will thread: "Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented."

Again, I don't try to prove the spiritual.

Ok, but you are using anecdotal evidence to claim something as factual and furthermore blaiming my ego for not accepting your anecdotal evidence as fact.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but you are using anecdotal evidence to claim something as factual and furthermore blaiming my ego for not accepting your anecdotal evidence as fact.

If you recall, you told me I had a big ego first and that I was avoiding empirics, which is why I responded as such. I was not using my anecdotal evidence. I was referring to my highly corroborated empirical data.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but you are using anecdotal evidence to claim something as factual and furthermore blaiming my ego for not accepting your anecdotal evidence as fact.

what is your theory of how she recovered then?

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

what is your theory of how she recovered then?

It sounds like her experience helped her. That doesn't mean it was real though.

I don't want to dwell on the psychosis thing, but if you look it up. A person under psychological stress, or using psychoactive drugs will have a psychotic experience, especially highly intelligent people. This sometimes results in them curing themselves and come to believe the experience was real.

It's textbook psychosis, but I'm only saying that because you asked. I don't want Angelica anymore upset with me than she already is.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

It sounds like her experience helped her. That doesn't mean it was real though.

I don't want to dwell on the psychosis thing, but if you look it up. A person under psychological stress, or using psychoactive drugs will have a psychotic experience, especially highly intelligent people. This sometimes results in them curing themselves and come to believe the experience was real.

It's textbook psychosis, but I'm only saying that because you asked. I don't want Angelica anymore upset with me than she already is.

i fail to see how this is any different from what she claimed. she says she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, had a spiritual experience, and was cured. you say she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, then was cured. where's the middle part? was it just magic that her mind suddenly righted itself?

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

i fail to see how this is any different from what she claimed. she says she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, had a spiritual experience, and was cured. you say she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, then was cured. where's the middle part? was it just magic that her mind suddenly righted itself?

The weird thing was that it wasn't sudden at all. It took 8 years after the first spiritual exprience for OCD to become healed. The spiritual experience showed me that OCD was there for a purpose and that I would/could heal it. I still had to do all the hard work, looking high and low for new resources, and by doing so, I came to rewire my own thought patterns. I'm blessed that it happened in slow mo--in normal terms, because I know how to make it happen for others, too. And I can write books about it, and become a speaker and use my example for others. I know these disorders inside and out, which is why I know more than many doctors about them, and especially about healing them. It's been a long "crazy" journey, and a good education is VERY expensive (in my case, this education cost years of self-respect, and I was not afforded the luxury to live as others do). But it's very worth it, and I've only just begun.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The weird thing was that it wasn't sudden at all. It took 8 years after the first spiritual exprience for OCD to become healed. The spiritual experience showed me that OCD was there for a purpose and that I would/could heal it. I still had to do all the hard work, looking high and low for new resources, and by doing so, I came to rewire my own thought patterns. I'm blessed that it happened in slow mo--in normal terms, because I know how to make it happen for others, too. And I can write books about it, and become a speaker and use my example for others. I know these disorders inside and out, which is why I know more than many doctors about them, and especially about healing them. It's been a long "crazy" journey, and a good education is VERY expensive (in my case, this education cost years of self-respect, and I was unable the luxury to live as others do). But it's very worth it, and I've only just begun.

That's exactly where Dr. Susan Blackmore was coming from, but now she realizes that was all an illusion and now she writes books on that.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

i fail to see how this is any different from what she claimed. she says she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, had a spiritual experience, and was cured. you say she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, then was cured. where's the middle part? was it just magic that her mind suddenly righted itself?

The difference is between her believing that her impossible experience was real, and her believing that her impossible experience was an illusion.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It sounds like her experience helped her. That doesn't mean it was real though.

I don't want to dwell on the psychosis thing, but if you look it up. A person under psychological stress, or using psychoactive drugs will have a psychotic experience, especially highly intelligent people. This sometimes results in them curing themselves and come to believe the experience was real.

It's textbook psychosis, but I'm only saying that because you asked. I don't want Angelica anymore upset with me than she already is.

I agree 100% Ahnimus. It is textbook psychosis. The problem comes in when most people don't know is what psychosis truly is. I do. From experience AND from information. Psychosis is a break from reality. What this means is a break from what everyone sees as reality. I've been blessed to see what is beyond "reality". How many people have done so? Even the Holographic Universe books talk about the mentally ill tapping the true ground state of life that others are oblivious to.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The difference is between her believing that her impossible experience was real, and her believing that her impossible experience was an illusion.

Well, if you know as much about the brain as you claim to, you probably know that the brain doesn't differentiate between reality and an illusion. This is why alpha males and females know that they can go far beyond normal performance with the right attitude, and with visualization and affirmations. Vivid mental imagery is real to the brain, and causes all kinds of amazing effects in reality.

I happen to know the REAL reality--the ground state. And once you know this reality, the normal reality is quite pale in comparison. It's very easy to differentiate. So when you're sure you are not living in a "Vanilla Sky" sequel, and when you know your reality is "real" as opposed to virtual, get back to me.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

The difference is between her believing that her impossible experience was real, and her believing that her impossible experience was an illusion.

then what was the reality of her impossible experience? that's what im asking. you admit that she suddenly changed. what was the cause? how did it happen? she said it was spiritual. what's your alternative (and i suppose infinitely superior) theory?