I believe that the best way to refine and sharpen ones own arguments is to test them with those that do not share the same assumptions. They are less likely to overlook or forgive the holes in the argument!

‘Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better
explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.’

My only concern with empiricism is that it can lead to Gnostocracy. I’m seriously concerned that within my lifetime I’ll see increased moves towards authoritarianism using “science” as a base.

As a good example look at the debate surrounding junk food and unhealthy lifestyles. Empirically people ought to eat less junk food. Yet this has been translated by some people as a social imperative- that government should force individuals to eat less junk food. Without any ideological or philosophical base to the contrary, fact-based analysis can imply “absolute right” in political discourse.

That said, I don’t think “fact-based analysis” will prove problematic in your field of Higher Education, nor do I think you’ll ever forget your philosophical roots. I just worry when places like the Grattan Institute claim to be fact-based. Empiricism still relies on a particular philosophical or social paradigm for interpretation, after all.