CRT is about rejecting empiricism as method to explain society as some part of western establishment idea. CRT is about using utterly subjective viewpoints instead and asigning validity based on who that witness is.
Psst.
Empiricism is also about using subjective viewpoints.
The position you're trying (and failing) to represent here is called positivism. Leaving aside the actual philosophy of positivism, it's essentially the position that all knowledge should be modelled on the physical sciences and on mathematics, because knowledge in these fields has a higher degree of certainty (or positivity) than knowledge of more complex things, like human beings. The easier something can be adapted to simple rules, the more useful knowledge of it is.
The problem with this is that it isn't useful and it doesn't work. It doesn't even really work in the physical sciences any more, because the understanding of the physical sciences today is far more complicated (and thus less "positive") than it was a century and a half ago when Newtonian mechanics were the height of scientific knowledge. If anything, rather than the social and human sciences needing to become more like the physical sciences, the reverse has happened. Positivism certainly doesn't work in the human sciences because human beings are extremely complicated, and by constantly trying to reduce them to simple principles you're no longer learning anything about human beings. Thus, positivism is useless to the objectives of the human sciences. It's better to have contingent partial knowledge of complex humans than garbage attempts to define universal rules which are ultimately based on nothing at all.
Furthermore, it also just fundamentally doesn't work on a philosophical level. For one, it's hypocritical. Claiming that only positive knowledge is itself valid is a claim that can't be verified positively. It's a violation of basic empirical principles, like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Positivism is an ideological positio, and it's an ideological position that only really exists to fuel some conflict between the physical and human sciences.
In reality, I've found that philosophers, social scientists and natural scientists generally get on just fine, because ultimately even though our methods differ we all kind of get the fundamental assumptions of empiricism. People who still cling really hard to positions like positivism and rationalism tend to be the "I fucking love science" bros. You know, the people who think they understand science but really just want to use it as a way to feel smarter than other people, or who do vocational degrees like engineering or CS and think that makes them a scientist. I'm not saying that's you, it's just my observation.
