There are two kinds of truth.
One kind is empirical truth; it’s considered true because it’s been proven by experiment, by something concrete. When you jump, you return to the ground because of a force we call gravity. That’s empirical truth.
The other kind is intuitive truth. It’s considered true not because there’s external proof, but because the knowledge itself is the proof. People believe there is a God (or Gods) not because we have external proof, but because it’s something felt, something where the feeling itself proves the truth. These truths are sometimes taught by a culture, but they can also be known on one’s own.
Western cultures tend to prioritize empirical truth and dismiss felt truth. The trouble is that both kinds of truth are useful. If one lens of truth is unhelpful, try the other and see if it lets you move.
Empirical truth’s great strength stems from the assumption that all that matters is empirical. This assumption, itself not an empirical statement, is typically so well buried in people’s psyche that only a small portion of the population is even aware that this assumption exists.
**Cort Ammon, Answer to Why do some people care so much about “empirical truth”?, 2018
Empirical truth is what we can most easily verify that we share. Experiences and experiments can often be recreated, if the phenomena involved in framing them are actually understood and documented well.
Subjective or intuitive truth may often be just as real, but it has historically been manipulated by those in power to one degree or another. So there is a real motive for trying to ground things in empirical truth whenever possible. We do not wish to be manipulated, and therefore empirical explanations have a democratic element to them.
user9166, Answer to Why do some people care so much about “empirical truth”?, 2018