Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Ben Davis]

Not quite, Chad. The counterfactual statement would be 'The truthfulness of all propositions must not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. As a statement, the individual words make sense but as a whole, it sentence has only grammatic veracity  
Consequently, the proposition can be held as axiomatic.

That's a disingenuous change because you are trading on the ambiguity of 'must'. In the original proposition 'must' means the same 'need'.

Not at all. Ignoring for a moment that you're trying to move the goalposts by altering the word 'must' to 'need' (a contrivance, if I've ever seen one), that would simply make the counter-statement 'The truthfulness of all propositions need not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. 'Must' meaning 'essential' and 'need' meaning 'necessary' are both equal and absolute qualifiers. It changes nothing.

Skeptics are claiming that people need to empirically verify something to know if it is true. That's not a self-evident statement. because it could be possible that there are some propositions that don't need to be verified to know they are true. We already have an example of one: the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Since the PNC requires no empirical verification, the other original proposition is false.

The PNC is derived from observations of reality! It couldn't be more empirical if it tried! Logical statements are descriptors not  prescriptors. I'll leave you to find a proposition that doesn't require verification to ascertain veracity. Good luck with that.

*shakes head