A flaw in method?

This morning i am pondering between practitioners who subscribe the the empirical science research paradigm and those who don’t.

I wonder if there could be a study which measures whether the empirical research method achieves better results for practice than one that doesn’t?

I mean, how could we research that? Because in order to do any research on that particular subject, the only way anyone would consider it valid, is if I went to school and studied the research methods and then implemented an experiment to study whether or not the its methods different in anyway and effectiveness?

Sounds like some loaded dice. Or a stacked deck.

I think it is this kind of contradiction which might argue for the subject of knowledge power and modern identity is not a true manifestation or description of the situation? 

And I think the answers to these questions thus point us in the direction of the question “what are we trying to accomplish?” When we see empirical science as something that’s giving us valid information? Valid for what?

So I wonder if “the benefit of humanity” is really a sufficient answer To get at the truth of the matter, so far as these institutions and effective practice go.