ah, the familiarity…sounds exactly like my english proffessor. except he always rings buddhist bells before he goes off on any thinking rants. i always have been fond of him. this holds a lot of truth.
loa

Radical empiricism can be destructive, though.
For example, one can never directly observe an electron or a black hole with one’s senses… but you’d be pretty hard pressed to say that electrons don’t exist.
Science builds knowledge not just through direct observation but through cooperation and webs of trust that allow individuals to have very high degrees of confidence in information that they themselves did not obtain.
History, archaeology, and most other intellectual pursuits work the same way.

This is true, but of course one could argue the inverse: as our collective knowledge compounds over the confidence of those generations before us, it’s possible we’re just abstracting ourselves further from the truth. Little mistakes, over time, could ripple into big ones. I’m not saying this is what happens in every case, only that it’s possible. In a given situation, empirical observation may not always be possible, but it’s certainly preferable; a little skepticism is always healthy. :-)