How can there be a problem with empirical truth? Isn't this what is true?
Philosophers have often questioned empirical truth. Aren't the senses fallible? How can experience be the source of truth when it is so chaotic, confused, and arbitrary? How can we make a statement from a small number of observations? What about concepts such as "fragile" or "length"? Even if observables confirm an hypothesis, where does the hypothesis come from?
If we dealt with experience alone, there would be no intuitive leap to go from the particular to the general. Often, speculative knowledge comes first. For example, Galileo discovered the law of gravity as a rule of proportionality and then confirmed the law with experiment.
One solution is to expand the scope of what it is that is true. This is the approach of Frege in going from words to sentences, and that of Quine, in going from sentences to knowledge as a whole. Then observables and concepts have a certain freedom.
More than this, it appears that language concerns much more than reality. Sensory experience is of course an important part of language. But so is ethics, imagination, games, and ideas. (cbb 4/94 4/98)