Good question and informative answer Thank you BOTH!

Well Prof !!!! again , I am pretty practical person (yeah excessively ) .

I am ok with conceptual ones too , don't remember why I memorized multiplication table ( I am glad I did ) !!!

Now , morality is like that, we grow up being told (blame them who told us ) and empirical is what we see, resulting in hugggggge CONFLICT !!!

The younger you are more room to cross the line of morality .Well ultimately logic takes 2 values TRUE or FALSE and that difference is what is now called "FUZZY" ...

I assume what conceptual truth, to mean theoretical truth, truth that is conceived in our thought processes as logically correct and be written down as part of a theory, but empirical truth is truth that is validated up on testing by physical means.

I like the very practical approach to the question by Prof. Aparna and the simple explanation of Prof. Mutasem.

Indeed, conceptual truths may not have been validated via scientific processes but may have sound truths, applicable to many of life situations. Empirical truths are reliably proven by scientific processes. Yet, they all share truths that pivots our lives in many contexts.

I think this article by JOHN A. CLARK will do.

Conceptual and empirical truth: some brief comments on Wilson's notes for researchers

John A Clark

Pages 197-199 | Published online: 09 Jul 2006

Download citation

https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188900320305

Dear Kirk,

Dear All,

I am afraid the question was a bit tricky. What is truth? How truth can be perceived and experienced, even proved? Truth is only a relationship. A decision process whether a statement can be evidenced or not. Regarding, that our senses and so our perception cannot be certain, there is but conceptual truth because the perception itself is but a concept. Thus, empirical truth may be only a rather obscure phenomenon. Please think on Plato’s theory of Forms and epistemology. The relationship of truth and morality is a much more swampy area.

Empirical truths derived from our sense whereas conceptual truths derived from the concept, which are discovered by us and when we understood the concept.

Hello,

The basic reason behind scientific endeavours is to establish the truth of certain statements about various realities of life. To this end, scientists adopt two different but complementary approaches; namely, empirical and conceptual approaches. The distinction was first broached up by the philosopher Immanuel Kant and was used for dividing propositions (i.e., affirmative subject-predicate statements) into two types : analytic and synthetic. Kant further contrasted the dichotomy with another distinction dividing propositions into a priori and a posteriori . The former involves a proposition whose justification does not depend on experience because the addressed proposition has a predicate concept which is contained in its subject concept (e.g., All bachelors are unmarried). By contrast, the latter introduces a proposition which can be validated based on observation and experimentation (e.g., All creatures with hearts have kidneys).On this basis, it can be stated that the distinction between empirical truth and conceptual truth is associated with the dichotomy between judgements and propositions whose truth may be established either apostriori or apriori.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Conceptual statements (sometimes called "analytic statements" by some philosophers) are such that we can judge their truth or falsity purely on the basis of our understanding their meaning. We often get a sense of oddness or immediate assent when we read them. (Statistics are sometimes added -- pointlessly and misleadingly -- to such statements for puposes of persuasion.)

Empirical statements (sometimes called "synthetic statements", also) cannot be judged to be true or false without information external to the statement. (Of course, our ability to agree on the answers depends upon a consensus as to the meanings of the critical terms. This consensus may not be widespread. )

For the statements listed below:

A. Decide whether the following statements state conceptual relationships, or

B. Empirical relationships

C. Can you determine if the statements are true or false?

Conceptual vs Empirical empirical and conceptual are two approaches that are commonly employed while conducting a research. Conceptual is also referred to as analytical as researchers while empirical analysis is a methodology that tests a given hypothesis through observation and experimentation. Both approaches are very popular but there is no hard and fast to their application and they are not mutually exclusive so as not to be employed in different aspects of a particular research.

see :http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-conceptual-and-vs-empirical/

Empirical truth is also as actual truth, contingent truth exact conformity as learned by observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally existent things in their actual status and relations. Conceptual truth . The combination of these two words seems to signify the conceptualization of truth , in other words, the attempt to explain truth, for its but an attempt, through concepts , which is but a perspective in the best outcome.

Empirical truths are truths that can be perceived by our senses whereas conceptual truths are derived from though process

"What is the difference between empirical truths and conceptual truths?"

Conceptual truth: the logical value of a proposition can be evaluated using the formal methods of mathematical logics. The expressions of a conceptual truth are subject to the limitations of the completeness of a specific theory.

Empirical truth: the logical value of a proposition is determined on the basis of the agreement with the observational evidence. The expressions of the empirical truth are subject to the limitations of the collected observations (quantity and accuracy)

"Why might someone think that moral claims don't fall into either category?"

The moral claims definitely don't fall into either category. We have to evaluate them on the basis of a set of ethical concepts. These concepts can't be derived from any theory or the empirical evidence.

The difference between empirical truths and conceptual truths is that empirical truths require information obtained by one or more of our five senses in order to be true. An example of this would be if I said it was raining outside, I do not simply know that, I had to look out the window and see rain falling, or maybe go outside and feel it raining. Conceptual truths are not like this. Conceptual truths do not require any sense to be true. Conceptual truths simply need to be known to be understood. Knowledge such as 2+2=4 or no sphere is a cube are conceptual truths. They do not require input from our five senses, we simply know them. Moral claims are not conceptual truths because even if we fully understand a moral claim, we can still wonder if it is true. Moral claims are not empirical truths either because no amount of input from any of the five senses can determine if an action is moral or not. Natural law theorists would classify moral claims as empirical truths. They would be empirical truths because we can determine whether or not an action is moral by seeing if the match up with our nature.

Philadelphia,, PA

Dear MacGregor & readers,

I would say that conceptual truths are those we are most inclined to be conservative about in the process of revising (or possibly revising) theory. Empirical claims are more easily surrendered in the face of contrary evidence, and contrary empirical evidence will typically be more obviously relevant. Still, supposed conceptual truths have been overturned on empirical grounds. Consider Einstein and the concept of absolute simultaneity.

Much the same strictures can also be applied to ethical discourse. For example, we tend to be more conservative about general principles, say, "Ought implies can," --that someone is obligated to do so-and-so implies that the person is able to do so-and so. This contrasts with particular judgments more obviously relevant to matters of fact, say, "It is wrong to create great quantities of smoke and soot in manufacturing processes." Many would certainly agree with this now, though I think it might have been rejected in the early 19th-century at the start of the industrial revolution.

H.G. Callaway

RE: Why might someone think that moral claims don't fall into either category?

The reason is that moral judgements (except those that are expressly about moral terminology itself) are not taken to be matters of definition so moral judgements can't be conceptual. Nor do they seem to be empirical, since differences in judgements often aren't resolved by citing more empirical facts.

Moral judgements, according to response-dependence or ideal observer theories, are empirical in the sense that the agent's attitude underlying the judgement is a response to features of the world. The idea is that according to the "logic" of moral discourse, moral disputes are in principle resolvable; lack of agreement is attributable to differing psychological conditions of agents including their beliefs. Failure to reach agreement is thus regarded as an epistemological hurdle rather than an inherent conceptual impasse. Troublesome epistemological hurdles occur in some scientific contexts too, e.g. in the widespread disagreements over nutrition and diet, which involve a variety of metabolic, ethnic, environmental, and combinatory factors.

An interesting moral truth is this: "Everyone deserves a fair trial." Is it empirical? Unless it is said in regard to a specific situation ("he and anyone like him deserves a fair trial") it doesn't seem to be straightforwardly in response to some feature of the world. Is it a conceptual (analytic) truth? Some take it to be an obvious platitude or a tautology, and there is surely some sort of mutual semantic relationship between the concepts of fairness and desert. But its denial doesn't seem to be self-contradictory, so it isn't analytic in the Kantian sense. How about synthetic a priori ? :)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Pfeifer & readers,

Very interesting comments on the topic of the epistemological status of moral judgments--the epistemological hurdle. I tend to think of this in terms of "the habits of the heart." We are all deeply involved with our various moral sentiments and they are particularly resistant to change or challenge. As I remarked above, this is similar to a kind of epistemological conservatism regarding basic elements of theory. But the commitments involved are of an added order related to (often culturally specific) habits of action and human interaction. Cultures too interact and change, partly in response to each other, and in their modified, presumably more universal forms, greater unanimity might be expected. But this, of course, is an extremely slow process.

The tendency toward regard higher level moral judgments as (absolutely) "a priori," I take it, is an expression of the more general tendency toward deep conservatism which is a general trait of more theoretical aspects of our cultural accumulations. But, of course, we also have to take notice of the typical, strongly emotional aspects of moral habits and judgments --which are a matter of our attachment to our own various moral and cultural environments. By insisting that "Everyone deserves a fair trial," I think we are basically aiming to create a common moral world. The opposite of this, is perhaps favoritism in its various forms but also cultural insularity. The opposite reaction to the world of moral experience,action and human interactions is certainly not unknown. The more thoroughly and uniformly a given culture or ethos is transferred down the generations--the success of the means of socialization--is likely a measure of the tendency toward cultural insularity --and internal favoritism.

In spite of this plea for tolerance and flexibility, I find it a remarkable fact that the highly developed ethics of Aristotle (dating from ca. 300 B.C.) still strikes many as a reasonable and even viable approach to life. Human nature does not change very much; and as I like to say, where there is no self-restraint (whether individual or collective), there is no virtue.

H.G. Callaway

Conceptual truth is completely dependent on the use and meaning of language, i.e., is language dependent. Empirical (from Greek empeiria) truth is dependent on our sense experiences. Conceptual truth is central in mathematics and symbolic logic, whereas empirical truth is central in the so called natural sciences. In social sciences both kinds of truth are essential.

I think this question can't be addressed adequately until we agree on a definition of "truth" - and this is a surprisingly difficult task...

For our discussion it is sufficient to have in mind two different definitons of truth: truth according to correspondence theory of truth (empirical concept of truth) and truth according to coherent theory of truth (conceptual concept of truth). I many scientific researches the two concepts of truth can be combined.

Interesting

The difference is that the conceptual truths that previously arose as axioms, concepts, primary considerations, theses, etc. can be verified experimentally, in life, in the laboratory, through specific scientific research. After verification carried out in the process of observing the operation of certain phenomena in the environment or in the process of research, conceptual truths, after formulating specific conclusions, can be transformed into empirical truths. Empirical truths can also be answers to research questions that were formulated to verify the research hypothesis. In recent years, modern analytical technology based on innovations in the field of ICT and Industry 4.0 has been increasingly involved in these research and analytical processes. As a result of this improvement of research processes, advanced analytics called Big Data Analytics is currently developing.

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I think th D. Prodopowicz' answer is correct. I would like to point out that theoretical or conceptual truth is known through logic reasoning ( a priori), whereas empirical truth is known through experience (observation and experiment), that is, a posteriori.

Dear Kirk MacGregor

You ask, "What is the difference between empirical truths and conceptual truths?".

Of course, my view is there should be NONE (no differences (at least, ideally and in some most-important sense -- and as far as we can tell)). I would strongly assert that this view I just indicated is THE one to take.