Talk:Empirical method

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

Notes & Queries[edit]

JA: The following reference is via a subscription site:

Percy W. Bridgman, Gerald Holton, "Empirical method", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.231000, last modified: April 10, 2000

JA: That is not open as I understand it. Can someone supply an open source or published equivalent? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 12:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Philosophy[edit]

I know that empirical verification has a lot of importance when it comes to Wittgenstein's theories on language, for example. Shouldn't we expand on that? -PatPeter 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose to merge this article into Empirical research. What do you guys think? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but i think the merging should be the other way around. they have no difference in content, little difficulty in merging into one article about a general concept, and cause a big mess if not do so.Kuphrer (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also second merging it into this article rather then the other way around. --67.103.38.227 (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually covering overlapping but distinct subject matters, one if about the concept of empiricism, the other is "empirical statistics", which is a classification with in statistics. Empiricism in science refers to the philosophical concept of empiricism. Scientists always uses the philosophy of empiricism, but they may or may not employ statistics. And when scientists do use statistics, they employs may or may not use "empirical statistics". It is also possible to use empirical statistics in a way that is not consistent with the philosophy of empiricism. In any event, "empirical statistics" should not be included in a page on empiricism that equivocates them, although they are certifiably related in practice. I think someone with a lot more expertise needs to look at the pages on empirically-related concepts and sort them out. - Someguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 (talk • contribs) 10:06, April 3, 2013‎

It's been a long time. I went ahead and did a redirect. Bhny (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of philosophical theory.[edit]

"Adding further confusion is another connotation of empiric. Strict empiricists are those who derive their rules of practice entirely from experience, to the exclusion of philosophical theory."

I have a problem with the above statement. Arn't all experiences interpreted through a worldview which involves a philosophy of some sort? Even if that person isn't aware of the underlying philosophy and presuppositions, nonetheless that person applies them.