Objective Direct and Indirect Evidence, and Subjective Inferences

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

Yes. But they use that criteria to say that if it can’t be empirically verified, it is meaningless and adds nothing to human knowledge. In other words, anything that can’t be empirically verified is just imagination.

So what would you call it?

Would you at least agree with their division between scientific and non-scientific, even if you don’t agree with their other conclusions?

@Jim

There’s a big difference between positivism and what I’m saying.

That’s fine. You seem to be trying to draw a line between objective and subjective. Can you find anything in that article that could help you better define that difference?