Empirical proof doesn't exist

[secrets0stolen]

Ultimately, there's two kinds of evidence: experiential or anecdotal. Scientific studies are experiential if you are the scientist, and they're anecdotal if you're not.
I know this may be a weird place to post this, but it's the forum where someone's always trying to 'prove' something through 'empirical evidence'.

[ginkgo]

I really do not know anything about kinds of evidence but here is what Wikipedia says:

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.

[Angela]

Prove it!!

(I'm sorry, my little baby nephew used to crawl up on my lap and put his face right up against mine, nose to nose, and say that phrase, about nothing and out of nowhere. It still cracks me up to think about, and I think about it every time someone demands proof. )

[Elrond]

Anectdotal evidence is when one person experiences that A causes B.

Empirical evidence is when a lot of different people see that A causes B, independently of each other.

Scientific fact is when a lot of different people find that A causes B within controlled experiments 10 000 times.

(I could be wrong ; ))