1) Everything in the world comes down to some sort of empirical observation. We were born with eyes and ears for a reason.
2) Any argument which attempts to refute this ends up having to make the same predictions that empiricism would in the first place. No one who has suggested empiricism is wrong has decided to walk off a cliff in defiance of it.
3) Science is one of the clear winners when it comes to empirically verifying things. I would bet on properly practiced science over almost any other method.
We do not agree on #1. We were born with eyes and ears.....that isn't proof that those things will always tell us the truth. What is the reason that we were given those things, indeed?
#2 is also flawed. First off, other approaches do not have to make predictions that can be tested empirically- that should be clear unless you cannot stop yourself from equating empirically useful with true. Second, I submit that many people have done similar things to walking off a cliff, in defiance of all empirical knowledge they have. Who's to say they are wrong?
Science is pretty good, yeah. Or at least physics is.
--
90s games > 00s games