Empiricism Revisited.

Although this provides no definite conclusion regarding the current double usage of the word 'empirical,' we might want to delineate between meaning 1 (m1: that which can be ascertained through direct experience) and meaning 2 (m2: that which can be ascertained through various scientific methodologies) as other thinkers have done (cf. Heidegger?). That is to say, limit the meaning of 'empirical' strictly to m2, and use the term 'phenomenological' for m1.

This distinction makes good etymological sense. The root of empirical is πεiρα (paera) meaning "trial." Since the word "trial" implies an test performed under controlled conditions, with preestablished standards of judgements, and the possibility of a "retrial," direct experience does not qualify as empirical. We have no control over the conditions in which our direct experience occurs, and therefore no ability to set up repeatable tests that can be judged according to uniform criteria (cf. Private Language Argument). We are better off refering to m2 with the word 'phenomenological' which is derived from the greek word φαινoμενα (phenomena), which means "appearances." The much more acurately describes direct experience, which manifests itself before us without our being able to control it.

Nevertheless, this brings us no closer to answering the question: how should we procede m1 (phenomenological facts) and m2 (empirical facts) contradict one another?