This is an example how philosophers work: if I understood you correctly, you state that one must have empirical evidence to back up their position. If someone

This is an example how philosophers work: if I understood you correctly, you state that one must have empirical evidence to back up their position. If someone claims something without giving empirical evidence, their claim should be refuted (or at least ignored). However, your claim that empirical evidence is required to make a position valid, is itself not backed up by any empirical evidence. I can even give counter-evidence, e.g., mathematics works very well without empirical evidence, so it doesn't seem to be required to gain valid knowledge. (just to back up my philosophical argument with empirical evidence)