Absence of Evidence..............

You may conclude provisionally that it does not exist physically within the territory you have combed. Not at all. We know invisible pink unicorns do not physically exist.To be 'pink' an object has to reflect a certain band of light from the spectrum back at the viewer. Invisible objects do not do this. If they did, the colour would render them visible.It is thus impossible for an object to be both invisible and pink at the same time.We may reasonably conclude that, as the object you propose is a self-contradiction according to the laws of physics, it cannot physically exist.(Note that in discussing the physics of light we are discussing known territory--'territory we have combed.')_______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

The OP makes the common mistakes of confusing factuality with truth, scientific knowledge with knowledge, and physical evidence with reality. The rest of the argument is built on these Silly Putty assumptions. No. But in science, yes.One reason subjects besides science are taught in public schools is because more is really happening. No. But in science, yes. No. But in science, yes.Don't believe there's more? Believe the science. It shows you.Behold the human brain. In it you will find two hemispheres and a cerebral cortex and loci that handle a variety of functions. Science can tell you which loci deal with empirical reasoning, mathematics, and the other mental functions that you need for your lab work. Find these. Once you've done that, notice how much of your brain is still left.The rest of your brain isn't just RAM cache. Big chunks of it take care of additional aspects of your thinking.You can deny, if you wish, that you need any of that extra-scientific functioning. But if you were to amputate those parts of the brain that handle it, you would not be happy with the results.Which is likely one reason why most people of this temperament don't go that far. They just pretend instead that all that unwanted brain matter has already been removed. They declare themselves to be scientific-method-only thinkers who handle every choice in life as if it were a math problem. Many even kid themselves that they have achieved the Total Scientific Lifestyle. The believe every conclusion they draw in life to be demonstrably empirical in nature. Emotions and other factors play no part.Regardless, the rest of their brain remains in the picture. It exercises its say and even yanks them around by its non-rational strings. They no longer see it. But their non-rational side remains much more obvious to their friends. Equally invalid, by your reasoning.You have no evidence for the physical existence of ethics. This makes the entire debate pointless. Asking about the best way to find ethical solutions is like asking about the best way to track invisible pink unicorns.Right?_________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

(Cue choir, cue organ.) Then your unicorn is real. Its invisibility is real, its pinkness is real, just as its effect on your life is real.It is real enough that we can both sit here and talk about it as if it physically existed. Real enough that it could have real cultural significance in time, should enough people find your vision seductive and adopt the image for themselves.This reality, though, is not physical or literal. You admit this yourself. It is thus not the kind of reality science deals with.No problem with physical laws exists now. Your unicorn is not a physical reality, so it is not bound by its laws. It can be what it is.Your unicorn is a subjective reality, not an objective one. It is a mental image.And it is a symbol. Pink 'more than' pink, existence 'more than' existence means these attributes symbolize something beyond the literal things we usually mean by these terms.Your creature is not science. For all the enrichment it brings to your life, you are stuck, I'm afraid, with its symbolic rather than empirical reality.The sooner you recognize this, and keep the two spheres distinct, the better for your unicorn, for science, and for yourself. If you confuse the subjective and symbolic with the objective and literal, you are likely to say incredibly silly and unnecessary things about equine zoology. Worse, you could find yourself losing a lot of money on expeditions to the Himalayas to find the Great Original Unicorn Corral.________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

I showed that they are manifested in the physical. Physical is not a synonym for 'empirical,' as you use it here.'Physical' refers to the organ under discussion: a brain. 'Empirical' refers to one way it does something. 'Non-empirical' refers to another.The physical brain uses both empirical and non-empirical means of gathering and processing information. Both are necessary.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

I'm having trouble understanding you here. I think you mean to say physical in discussing the role of the brain.'Empirical' is not a synonym for this. 'Empirical' refers to a way of thinking, not to the organ that does it.Many brains are not very 'empirical' at all, as we both know.

No dispute. Just seeking precision.Truth may be expressed as symbol or as fact.Insisting that your invisible pink unicorn is 'true' does nothing to clarify how truth is expressed in it. Is this symbolic or factual truth? Is your unicorn subject or object?We have already established that, physically speaking, its existence is impossible. That rules out the existence of the unicorn as a physical object. But the comfort is gives you is (ahem) undeniably real. This points toward a subjective reality for the unicorn.

If truth is the issue, any reality your invisible pink unicorn possesses matters very much. Reality and truth are synonyms.We have established that your invisible pink unicorn cannot be real as a physical object. It embodies a fatal self-contradiction according to the laws of physics.This need not prevent it from having a potent existence as a symbol. Much of what you said in its defence suggests a symbol (simultaneous possession of physically contradictory features, its 'colour beyond colour' etc.). That's why I mentioned this possibility.Your invisible pink unicorn is already real as a concept. Neither of us have encountered such a creature in the physical universe, yet we can talk about it and understand each other without running to our dictionaries. Our behaviour demonstrates the reality of a concept we call 'invisible pink unicorn.' To say anything more about the 'truth' of your unicorn--to dispute your claim or affirm it--we need more clarity about what kind of truth you are claiming. We have already eliminated one possibility from the kind of truth you can claim for it.If you claim your unicorn is real as a physical object, your claim already stands refuted on the grounds I stated. Such an object is physically impossible.If you claim your unicorn is real in some other way--as a symbol, as a concept, as a metaphysical object--then we can talk.So what kind of truth for it are you claiming?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Empirical refers to a method, to a way we think of something. The brain itself is a physical object, not an 'empirical' one.If we have a pickled brain in a jar in our biology lab, that brain is a physical object. We can study that brain empirically. But the object of our interest is not itself 'empirical.' It couldn't care less how we study it.Back before it was pickled in formaldehyde, in the days when that brain sat perched inside a skull and was being used by somebody, it employed both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking.The brains inside our own skulls, the brains you and I use today as we study the pickled brain in the lab, also use both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking.When I offered the human brain's multiple functions as evidence that both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking have their value, you declared empiricism the winner on the premise that brains themselves are 'empirical.' They are not. Brains are physical objects. They may do things in empirical and non-empirical ways when they are alive. But these words refer to ways brains do things, not to the brains themselves.It's as if you said left is the only valid direction for anyone to move. I say 'But look at cars. They come from the factory with a reverse gear and a steering wheel that can take them right as well as left. This suggests that all directions have their uses.' You then say 'I can't believe you brought cars into this. Everyone knows cars are left. If it all comes down to cars, left automatically wins.'The flaw: 'left' is a direction. It is not a car. This question is impossible to answer as worded.The main problem with it is the assumption that I took a 'non-empirical stance.' Not so. I used empirical means to show the validity of non-empirical modes of thought.Another problem with the question is that the choice it poses is weird. It's like being asked 'Do you think it will rain tomorrow or is there something else that defines this sunny disposition of yours?'Say what?______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

I'm delighted you're delighted. Thanks to Mike for giving me the opportunity, then, to cut to the chase in my own contribution.Empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking originate in the brain. This means that both ways of doing things are ultimately subjective. They are functions of how each individual brain operates.Mike showed this for empiricism by pointing out the axiomatic basis of empirical knowledge. I have been going at both sides of it.Non-empirical: There is no way to get that unicorn out of your head and into the physical universe. This does not deny the reality of the unicorn as a subject rather than an object.Empirical: If the scanner in the future were to show the data you propose--non-empirical thought processes are all in our heads--this does not mean empiricism 'wins.' The empirical process is in our heads, too. A question remains about the data: 'show' to whom? Another brain remains in this picture, doing what brains do, drawing conclusions in the empirical and non-empirical ways brains draw them. None of the information from the scanner has meaning--there is no 'information' at all--until someone thinks about it. Empiricism's value is indeed practical. It's value does not lie in taking us to The Truth™. That's why scientists usually take care to distinguish the two.All forms of knowledge, when you trace the threads, just take you further back into your own skull. Ultimately, it's all in our heads.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.