For me what I mean is this.
Science does not support miraculous healings. We have no proof of people laying their hands on someone with broken bones and the bones going back together. We have no proof of someone being able to lay hands on a person with fever and instantly drive it off. Scientific data does not hint at things like dreams actually being messages occasionally from a spiritual being. If it had to be put to a test, the scientific conclusion would be it did not happen.
Empirical data comes out of empirical research. It is not just any old observation. It is information obtained in a systematic way in order to support or refute a research question. It is either objective information obvious to one or more senses that multiple observers would assess similarly or it is the results of measurements or tests.
Recording a personal anecdote about a divine encounter may be data, since data just means information, but it is not empirical data in the sense the term is used in science. You can’t make rational arguments based on semantic games.
A forensic detective records field observations of events which she cannot reproduce and from which to draw inferences, such as a perpetrator’s M.O.
Who is playing semantic games?
What kind of observations do you think a forensic detective would make that would count as scientific? Do you think a different forensic detective would be capable of making the same ones given similar training? Would they go about making these observations in a systematic way? Would things be collected in a systematic way to be measured, tested, or otherwise analyzed in a lab according to established, repeatable procedures? Would any of these observations involve divine encounters?
If the forensic detective records her supernatural visions about who is guilty, her intuitive assessments of the significance of her observations of suspect’s behavior, or the voices she heard from God, none of that is empirical data.
We are talking about physical, natural events that appear the same to any observer. I can go to Maggie’s story and enumerate them for you, if necessary.
I think you guys are really discussing objective evidence vs. subjective evidence. Objective evidence is that evidence that is verifiable and different observers can agree upon, whereas subjective is subject to opinion and interpretation.
I am talking about objective evidence.
I am talking about empirical evidence.
From “Empirical Evidence: A Definition”
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. “Empirical” means “based on observation or experience,” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.
Empirical evidence: A definition | Live Science
So forensics is not scientific.
Solving crimes is not a purely scientific process, no. Forensic science can aid in solving crimes. So can witness testimony. So can gut feelings. So can knowledge of human psychology.
Forensic detectives do that.
It’s not all they do, and not every observation a detective makes is “empirical data.” This is not really that complicated.
I agree. I’m not at all sure you get it.
The details of the events are material and objective and recordable: empirical. If similar circumstances happen again, you might have a clue as to M.O.
So, the various media hounds who claimed a cure for Covid relied on empirical evidence: " I tried this treatment and the patient got better." Obviously, sometimes empirical evidence can be true, and sometimes not.
In this scenario, the detective did not observe events of the crime they are investigating. They can observe results of the events and collect empirical data related to the current situation to support or rule out a hypothesis about what happened. No empirical evidence they collect will support or rule out a miracle.
Mary, Peter, John, and Thomas did not record empirical evidence of the event of Jesus’ resurrection; the moment his blood pressure went from nothing to normal, the body temperature going from ambient to 98.6, oxygenation in the blood going from 0 to 100%. They observed the results of the event, a living breathing Jesus who they had observed dead before. And what we have is their testimony that God raised Jesus from the dead, not empirical data that supports a miracle.
If there is a rose left at every crime scene, you have reason to think that the perpetrator is the same person. It could be a copycat, of course, if it’s a high profile case.
That is an example of an inference, not empirical evidence.
Sets of occurrences that have meaning can support the conclusion that the same perpetrator is involved. Or Perpetrator.
The evidence is empirical, the conclusion inferred is not. Get it right. 
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.