Tedlock lays out a bunch of principles to come to correct conclusions. One of the principles is being a fox that uses multiple chains instead of trying to use one correct chain that rests on a foundation based on which other beliefs can be logically deduced.

Missing the point. The point is how their conclusions are verified.

Holding a belief because of a chain of logic has little to do with the principle of empricism.

Logic is implicit in empricisicm because the idea that contradictions are false is implicit in the idea of disproof by contradictory evidence.

There are many ways to do bad forecasts. As far as the examples of cranks and schizophrenics go, those are usually hedgehogs. A lot of cranks usually follow a chain of logic. If you take people who think there are illegal tricks to avoid paying income tax, they usually have elaborate chains of logic to back up their case.

Missing the point. I didn't say that logic is sufficient for correctness. I am saying that if you have some sort of black-box, but effective reasoning, then some kind of presupposition is going to be needed to verify it.

How do you know that I hold my belief based on a "suppresed premiss"? If something is supressed and you can't see it, maybe the structure of my reasoning process isn't the structure you guess.

If you have other reasoning show it. Otherwise that was an irrelevant nitpick.