&gt; It is a hypothesis that can be investigated and refuted.<p>I already covered that. Empirical evidence can only be obtained by experience. It is very important to science that experiments are reproducible, which means that the results of the experiment can be observed independently. Observation is experience.<p>&gt; The question is: how do you react when the data contradicts your hypotheses? How do you react when it is shown that the arguments you base your views on are fallacious?<p>Do you really think i would answer that with &quot;i ignore that information!!1!&quot;. <i>Other</i> people label an &quot;SJW&quot; with these incriminations.<p>&gt; The SJW position is to dismiss empiricism and rationality instead of changing their views.<p>There is no such thing as &quot;The SJW position&quot;. No one holds this position. As i said, <i>other</i> people claim that &quot;SJW&quot;s are irrational and reject empirical evidence. It is a word used to smear people by grouping them together in a category of &quot;bad&quot;. There is no &quot;SJW&quot; manifesto or association of &quot;SJW&quot;s.<p>Everyone takes in data, evaluates it, and changes their beliefs based on it. This is the basis of intelligence. However, we take shortcuts. Everyone takes shortcuts. Even in professional science, no one reruns every experiment and verifies for themself through direct observation the results. That would take too long. The basis of social intelligence is evaluating proxies for direct observational evidence, i.e. experience.<p>What people who use the term &quot;SJW&quot; mean when they use it is that someone evaluated the same indirect data in a different way from them, and this led to a disagreement <i>and they are convinced that there is no way anyone could disagree with them</i>.<p>This is a pointless conversation.