My brother (a philosopher) and I have been having a discussion regarding empirical reasoning. A sticking point arose when my brother stated that the conclusion of empirical reasoning must be correct if the premises are taken as correct. I maintain that the conclusion will be correct to varying degrees if the empiric observations are several, and that the degree of correctness may change as more observations are added over time. Can you offer any insight to this argument?
If by "empirical reasoning" you mean non-deductive reasoning, then your brother is incorrect. That the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion is a hallmark of deductive reasoning.