Could medieval scholastic empiricism be an example of pure empiricism?

Suppose the language Latin becomes popular again. Some writers write new books in Latin, and many copies are sold. Some languages, such as English, continue to be more popular than Latin. In this context, a dispute arises between two publishing companies.

Company X says that company Y published an unauthorized English-language translation of a book recently written in Latin and published by company X. Company Y alleges that the author of its English-language book was merely influenced by the Latin work published by company X, and that the English-language book is not a translation of the Latin work.

The dispute is to be resolved in a courtroom, and each party has its own expert witnesses who are fluent in both Latin and English.

My Question:
**Is the dispute about an empirical question? **

The question certainly has practical consequences: royalties that might be payable. To somebody who knows no Latin and who has read neither book, it seems that we are talking about something “out there” in the real world. On the other hand, we are talking about a comparison of two texts, one of which is in Latin, so the question appears to fit into the stereotype of a scholastic dispute.

What motivated me to start this thread:

There were at least two references to empiricism recently in threads that I have been participating in …

Allegation that something can be tested empirically

Referring to what is empirically true or empirically proven:

However, other than some fairly abstract discussions of instrumentalism versus empiricism, I have not found anything online that clarifies the adjective “empirical.”

I can’t believe nobody has responded yet. I’m sorry that I can’t contribute much, because I don’t think I understand the issue very much. But geez, I think it’s interesting enough that at least a few people should have jumped on this, right?

I don’t know whether medieval scholastic empiricism works on the same basis as the modern variety, but my five cents is that the expert witnesses can’t give testimony without first reading the books, and the jury can’t reach a verdict without first listening to the examination of the witnesses, so both the witnesses and jury gain knowledge empirically - knowledge they could not gain by reasoning alone.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit