The empirical was classically much more broadly construed, was much more integrative and interdisciplinary, more personal even, than science is often considered today. Today we run the risk of invalidating people’s experience because it doesn’t fit into scientific authorities’ preconceptions. That is an injustice. And it skews the knowledge base.

At the same time we need to find what a particular modality does best and use that information, rather than every modality pretending to be all things to all people, and disparaging other modalities wholesale. This is also an injustice. And it skews the knowledge base.

A posteriori knowledge was contrasted with a priori knowledge (what we can know even before having sense experience). A priori knowledge referred largely to deductive logic, direct intuition, or revelation in the religious domain.

Scientists use inductve logic, reasoning from particular cases to hypotheses or theories or general rules. Scientists can also generate fruitful hypotheses using deductive reasoning and intuition. In this way, the best scientific thinking is integrative and moves discovery along faster and more fully than any one kind of thinking alone.

There are many facets to the diamond that we call science. Scientists often have a very narrow view of what they’re doing and the legal parameters of their game, while at the same time too often ending up with ethically and intellectually questionable results especially in medical research. I’d prefer more commonsense, integrative approaches, intellectual integrity, elimination of conflicts of interest, and more checks and balances and expert eyes from various disciplines looking over studies before publication to get the bugs out from early in the process to late in the process.