From naming the unknown (“the nature of…”) to correlations, functions, and verification—this episode explains how empirical method aims your questions so understanding can become warranted judgment. We contrast classical and statistical heuristics, walk through Lonergan’s six canons of empirical method, and show how real research moves from data to “Yes/No/Not yet.”

What you’ll learn

How to write a clean heuristic: “the nature of ___”

The pipeline: data → correlations → functions → verification → judgment

The six canons (Selection, Operations, Relevance, Parsimony, Complete Explanation, Statistical Residues)

Why classical (system/invariance) and statistical (frequency/range) are complementary

A practical 6-step template to turn a live question into a testable claim

Chapters
00:00 — Cold open / Title
00:32 — Intro
01:34 — What “heuristic” really means
03:29 — The classical pipeline: from observation to function
05:27 — The six canons of empirical method
09:10 — Classical and statistical complementarity
09:49 — How science thinks (data → function → verify → judge)
11:57 — Three recurrent mistakes (and the cure)
13:07 — A miniature case study (free fall template)
14:10 — Classical ↔ statistical handoff
14:46 — A word on viewpoint shifts (deeper invariance)
16:38 — Closing synthesis
17:25 — Preview of Episode 3

Key ideas & terms

Heuristic: an orienting name for the unknown (“the nature of …”) that keeps inquiry honest and directed.

Classical heuristic: expects systematic relations expressible as functions/invariances.

Statistical heuristic: expects frequencies/ideal distributions and ranges.

Parsimony: affirm only what’s verified; define explanatory terms by the verified pattern.

Objectivity as achievement: insight proposes; judgment (Is it so?) disposes.

Try the drills (use them with your own research)

Heuristic card (10 min): Write “the nature of ___.” List similar cases, candidate variables, and whether you expect a classical or statistical treatment.

Correlation plan (20 min): Specify what you will measure, range/precision, confounders, and which canon guards each choice.

Scissor test (15 min): Upper blade—your anticipated law (“We expect an invariant relation …”). Lower blade—apparatus, sampling, fit criterion, verification threshold. Do they meet?

Source & orientation

Bernard Lonergan, Insight (CWL 3): heuristic structures; classical vs. statistical method; canons of empirical method; verification and judgment.

This series presents those moves in plain language with practical workflows for study, teaching, and research.

Continue the series

Playlist: Insight (CWL 3)

Playlist: Method in Theology (CWL 14)

Support the channel
If this helped, subscribe and share. Post your Heuristic card in the comments (your field + “the nature of ___”) and I’ll suggest variables and verification steps.

How do we recover meaning in a fragmented world?
Short reflections on consciousness, conversion, and responsibility.

Read the full essays at Mediated by Meaning: https://mediatedbymeaning.substack.com

#meaning #philosophy #faith #psychology #jordanpeterson #catholic #lonergan #selfunderstanding