I don't think I need to get rid of scientific knowledge, because even though I am relying on past experiments, I could theoretically repeat the experiment again, and I would be able to verify that empirically. That's why scientific knowledge is the only reliable source of truth.

Well, if our criteria for reliable knowledge is that something should be repeatable and testable, then I think there are huge areas of science that would have to be discarded as well. Like evolutionary theory, big bang theory, cosmology, theoretical physics, to just name a few, because they cannot be tested or repeated.

But for the sake of the argument, let's just say we could theoretically repeat every test and get empirical data. But the reality is that practically, no one does. And the important question is: well, why not? Isn't it possible that some scientist somewhere fudged the data or that your memory is faulty? Yes, those are all possible. But still, scientists reasonably trust the records from the past. Why? It's not because it passed the criteria of empiricism, but because it's reasonable to believe them. Again, I'm appealing to reasonable knowledge, rather than the extreme criteria of empiricism.

But anyway, if you are saying that empirical knowledge is the only reliable source of truth, and you're therefore willing to dismiss all other forms of knowledge like common sense knowledge, rationality, logic, history, your own memory, and any theoretical science, then I think that's where we could agree to disagree. But I hope that gave you some food for thought.