Quotes About Empirical

Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes

We cannot ultimately specify the grounds (either metaphysical or logical or empirical) upon which we hold that our knowledge is true. Being committed to such grounds, dwelling in them, we are projecting ourselves to what we believe to be true from or through these grounds. We cannot therefore see what they are. We cannot look at them because we are looking with them.

In so far as a theory cannot be tested by experience—or appears not capable of being so tested—it ought to be revised so that its predictions are restricted to observable magnitudes.

Religion without science is superstition. Science without religion is materialism.

Until the 1960s, liberals understood themselves to be devotees of a rationality that allowed individuals to question authority on the basis of empirical and historical argumentation.

It's wrong to try and convert tribal societies. What should the empirical evidence for religion be? It should produce peaceful, strong, secure people who are right with God and right with the world. I don't see that evidence very often.

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.

Whatever input it's given, the neural net is generating an answer. And, it turns out, to do it in a way that's reasonably consistent with what humans might do. As I've said above, that's not a fact we can "derive from first principles". It's just something that's empirically been found to be true,

I'm English enough to feel something of a gut-reaction to modernism, to continental philosophising and anything that smacks of a refusal to pay attention to the forensics: the empirical facts on the ground.

Unfortunately, even though Thomas Nagel would love it, technology today does not permit us to truly understand how different organisms experience the world. Often it is even difficult for us to understand our own perception of the world. The best we can do to empirically understand the experience of others, both animals and people, is to use behavioral and brain-activity measurements.

A través del ajuste de lo que se aprende a lo largo del camino, Toyota avanza como lo haría un científico. Con cada nueva constatación empírica, el científico ajusta el rumbo para aprovecharse de lo que ha aprendido. Aprendo cada día lo que necesito saber para hacer el trabajo de mañana. Explicación del historiador ARNOLD J. TOYNBEE relativa a su alta productividad Nada en el horizonte puede tener una

it is likely that even if string theory is right, no one ever will. Strings are so small that a direct observation would be tantamount to reading the text on this page from a distance of 100 light-years: it would require resolving power nearly a billion billion times finer than our current technology allows. Some scientists argue vociferously that a theory so removed from direct empirical testing lies in the realm of philosophy or theology, but not physics.

Come from the heart, the true heart, not the head. When in doubt, choose the heart. This does not mean to deny your own experiences and that which you have empirically learned through the years. It means to trust your self to integrate intuition and experience. There is a balance, a harmony to be nurtured, between the head and the heart. When the intuition rings clear and true, loving impulses are favored.

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Every time a scientific paper presents a bit of data, it's accompanied by an error bar – a quiet but insistent reminder that no knowledge is complete or perfect. It's a calibration of how much we trust what we think we know. If the error bars are small, the accuracy of our empirical knowledge is high; if the error bars are large, then so is the uncertainty in our knowledge.

science carries us towards an understanding of how the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be [...]

All three of Kepler's laws of planetary motion can be derived from Newtonian principles. Kepler's laws were empirical, based upon the painstaking observations of Tycho Brahe. Newton's laws were theoretical, rather simple mathematical abstractions from which all of Tycho's measurements could ultimately be derived. From these laws, Newton wrote with undisguised pride in the Principia, "I now demonstrate the frame of the System of the World.

If we practice conscious breathing, we will calm the turmoil and sorrow in our minds whenever they appear. If at first our practice is not successful, we continue until we see the results. When we see that the practice works, slowly our faith in it grows. Our faith is always based on empirical evidence. We do not believe it just because it has been repeated many times by others.

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

Again, we cannot search the whole world in order to make sure that nothing exists which the law forbids. Nevertheless, both kinds of strict statements, strictly existential and strictly universal, are in principle empirically decidable, each, however, in one way only: they are unilaterally decidable. Whenever it is found that something exists here or there, a strictly existential statement may thereby be verified, or a universal one falsified.

Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.

In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.