what are empirical logics?

Logic that's based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

For example, this logic wouldn't need to be a peer reviewed thesis because it stands out in our observations and experiences.

It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth successfully; an empirical logic.

when you say "logic" do you mean "statement"? Because "It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth" looks just like a normal statement to me.

And as a statement, sure, we know this statement is true for empirical reasons - we observe it regularly, we live in a world where other people observe it regularly.

No, because it's based on the fact when stars successfully rise and fall above or below planets there is day time and night time. There is an outstanding amount of stars and planets working like this at this moment. Therefore, without writing a thesis I can determine this statement in reference to empirical logic is true.

If the Sun rises above Earth and it doesn't create day time, it doesn't change the fact it's more likely to create day time. Empirical does not mean absolute, it means more probably.

I don't know what you're saying "no" to

when you asked me 'do I mean statement?'

okay. "It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth" looks like a statement to me. You're saying it's not a statement, it's "a logic". I don't know what you mean by that, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of other posters here also would not know what you mean by that. What is "a logic" and how is it different from a statement?

It's a statement referring to a logic. Statements are not normally free of content, can you make a content-less statement? The content of the statement was a reference to empirical logic about rising Suns and day time.

It's a statement referring to a logic. — Barkon

A logic is a statement referring to a logic. Okay, so... the definition seems self referential and circular now. If a logic is a statement referring to a logic, then in order to know what a logic is, I first have to know what a logic is. So what's a logic? Well, it's a statement referring to a logic. Okay but what's a logic? A statement referring to a logic of course.

I still don't know what a logic is

Do you perhaps have a link to someone else defining this usage of "a logic"?

Logic is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

A statement is just the conduit of which I expressed a logic. Hence, content in statements.

The fact it's an empirical logic means all I need to produce is a statement on the matter and not a thesis, because it's obviously relatable and using the tool of word, I can depict something corelate to the empirical nature of that logic.

Empirical: is it consistent and leaning towards this answer.

If I may make a suggestion, I think you should move away from calling these things "a logic" and find a more universally shared vocabulary. That's all.

Some empirical logics can only be understood by first understanding everything there is to know, because you would need to be able to sense these logics in the universe, thus allowing you to see all the empirical logic. This seems like the process of philosophy to me. Would you agree that philosophy is largely down to registering and thinking in line with empirical logics? — Barkon

So, yes and no. In your case, the way you ask this question, it's mostly no.

My own theories about reality include a required three-way approach to wisdom, and philosophy is the love of wisdom.

The approaches are fear, anger, and desire. The fear side is the only side from which logic comes. All thought, all order, structure, patterns, etc; are manifestations of fear. Empiricism is a fear-side approach to truth.

So, whereas it is true that fear is part of truth (1/3rd to be precise), your idea is missing 2/3rds of truth, so that's less than an F as a grade. ;)

well I can't help but agree with that. Thank you. Lol.

Is inductive reasoning what you mean by "empirical logic"?

yes. I didn't know this term.

Some empirical logics can only be understood by first understanding everything there is to know — Barkon

I think we'd all benefit from an example of this. What is an example of an inductive belief which can only be understood by first understanding everyone there is to know?

you wouldn't be able to reason with something specific if you didn't have the relative induction.

So what's an example of an inductive belief that you wouldn't understand without first understanding everything there is to know?

For that I would have to know everything so you've kind of set the bar too high.

I set the bar too high? But those are your words. "can only be understood by first understanding everything there is to know" -- that's from your OP. I'm trying to understand why you set the bar that high.

Logic is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. — Barkon

Empirical does not mean absolute, it means more probably. — Barkon

Deductive logic proceeds from premises which are often produced from inductive reasoning and empirical evidence. As you noticed, empirical evidence does not provide absolute certainty, so inductive principles are based n probability. So when we judge empirical premises as true or false, these are judgements of probability. If I say "Premise A is true", I really mean it is probably true, and this is because I don't "understand everything there is to know", and something may be overlooked, as you mention in the op.

Logic is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. — Barkon

This statement is applicable to deductive logic, but inductive reasoning (logic) does not proceed according to strict principles. This is why induction cannot be relied on to provide certainty.

Absolutely.

There is no such things as Empirical Logic. We apply our reasoning to the empirical events or objects. The way you apply your reasoning to the events, objects, formulas or statements, be it inductive or deductive is called Logic.

The word you're looking for is a posteriori. There are things we know with certainty which are known after experiencing them, usually having an implicational form. For example if our chemical theories are true, water is H2O. Many people will say it's analytic a priori which Kant says is impossible. Kripke gave it as an example of analytic a posteriori. And yes, the guys like Aristotle, who was an empiricist, would say that certain knowledge in philosophy comes from finding necessary conditions of the observed affairs. And they would hold their theses as certain, excluding irrational doubt in the principles of logic and very general observations.
I think I know what OP means by empirical logics. For example there are kinds of temporal logics which assume discrete time. Modal logics differ in the concept of possibility. So it's arguable their axioms and rules aren't known a priori. Imo the fact of the matter would be that a priori logics are fictitious. Unless by a priori you mean assumed, then yeah. All axioms and rules of primitive rules of derivation are assumed, but then all logic would be a priori. But what we mean is where the axioms come from.