[chronic_loser]

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?>>>

Simply, because empiricism, by definition, cannot authenticate itself, as it cannot get "outside" the realm of particulars to any type of "meta" anything.
Empiricism, by definition, is concerned with observable details. For example, David Hume recognized this when he observed one billiard ball "causing" the otherst to scatter on impact. In fact, he observed nothing of the sort. He observed one ball striking others and the others scattering. Empirical data re: causality is completely lacking. Push it back far enough and you are left only with statements that there are certain perceptions and our minds tend to organize these into patterns. Whether these have any real relationship to the "think in itself" (Kant) is a matter of conjecture and COMPLETELY unresolvable with the empirical method. Therefore, empircism collapses back on itself.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

[Right Wing Professor]

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

This intemperate individual is apparently incapable of arguing a point without attacking those who might possibly disagree with him. The proposition that empiricism cannot infer causality is, of course, rubbish. A two-year old infant who learns that crying brings his mother knows better.