Digital BW, The Print

Peter writes:

> You really don't know what "empirical"
> means, do you?

Yes, I do.

Can you compose an entire post without insulting me in some way?

> "Evidence" is not what someone hypothesizes -
> evidence has to exist empirically.

No, it does not.  For example, it is sufficient to say that x = a+b,
therefore b = x-a without the need to "empirically" provide "evidence" for
this by inserting actual numbers into these equations.

Demonstrating the principle I'm discussing here by inserting actual numbers
would be extraordinarily time-consuming.

> Austin also asked you for a clear, real world
> example, so I'm not the only one.

Austin is having the same trouble understanding it, which surprises me, as
he does not seem unintelligent.