I'll give it all the consideration that philosophical musings deserve.
OK. Tell me again how your empirical observations are verifiable? Tell me how you can "prove" the sensory data you "receive" is not just the product of your brain, or the delusional mix of your brain and something which may or may not be out there? Tell me now you "know" that matter behaves in a uniform way, so that water will always boil at 100 degrees at sea level. You don't "know" any of these things. All you can say is that what appear to be sets of data appear to correlate with each other. You must make a HUGE set of assumptions on "philosophical musings" which are not scientifically verifiable at all just to DO science. The brighter scientists know this and will acknowledge it. The stupid ones think that assumption (aka "faith) is in itself "proof." Thus we have idiots spouting off about "proof" and "faith" as though science belongs to one realm and religion belongs to another. The true halfwits are technical people who have no idea that their whole approach to empirical data ("science") is based on scientifically unverifiable "philosophical musings."