All of human interaction and artistic expression exists in the 'real world', I think using that term to exclude everything other than simple physical phenomena

All of human interaction and artistic expression exists in the 'real world', I think using that term to exclude everything other than simple physical phenomena is misguided at best. > nor is he saying that in the absence of empirical knowledge you shouldn't use other less rigorous information to make decisions. As I read it, he's saying that only empirical knowledge exists [at least in the context of "real world" or physical phenomena], rendering the term 'empirical knowledge' essentially redundant. How could you use non-emperical knowledge if such a thing doesn't even exist? Limiting the scope of consideration to simple physical phenomena: What about your innate intuition about the way physical objects behave? Is there no use for that? Nobody gets out a pencil and solves kinematic equations every time they try to catch a baseball. There's a great deal of utility to be found in the intuitive knowledge of how the physical world works.