Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[robvalue]

Well of course it is evidence that empiricism reliably produces practical knowledge! The scientific method and its effects have been one of the greatest achievements of humanity. How did the scientific method come about? Did it fall from the sky? =)

I don't know if this is a serious question of not. It came about by people trying different things and honing on in on the best available method.

I agree with that. The OP asked about the idea that empiricism is the ONLY way to obtain true knowledge. Did some results of the method converge on that conclusion?

I don't understand this question, sorry. I don't think the OP idea is accurate anyway, knowledge about abstract systems does not need empirical data.

When evidence is used to build the premises, and not later included to test a hypothesis, that's when we get pseudo-science.

Can you say more about that?

Sure. The scientific method makes observations, then makes premises based on those observations (a hypothesis), then makes testable predictions based on those premises, then goes back to reality in order to check their accuracy.

Attempts to sidestep the method by using just logical arguments, such as the cosmological argument, omit the vital prediction and testing parts. They do not validate the accuracy of their premises, they simply assume them, and in doing so assume their conclusion.