Thank you.
They are the same problem- trying to explain things ‘on the basis of experience’ that we didn’t come to know through experience, but rather through our natures. It is just the same as explaining what color is to a blind person.
In reality, you can break up and define things as different problems. But if you get deep enough into it, you will discover that all these problems are interconnected to each other. They may seem like different problems, but they are in fact one problem. If you’re lucky enough, you’ll realize that none of these problems really exist.
On the one hand, you all are right, however we cannot come to know necessity without experiencing it first. If you had never had a need for something, how would you know what need is? You would’nt.
These problems are the same in the fact that they all involve abstract thought, however, to address your other concern, you cannot explain abstract thought without the explainee first having experienced some form of abstract thought.
Just some mind cookies to much on. 
Universality, tautology and the rest belong to the metaphysical realm of language where we can pretend to mean the same thing each time we use a word. The empirical realm gives us no such excuses…
There is some definite truth to that statement. However, the only problem is, if you’re at all interested in interpreting data, which most scientists are, it’s going to have to base on some sort of subjective analysis.
I may be wrong, but we just discussed tautology thoroughly here.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 20&start=0
I took a similar approach to what you’re saying about universals…I argued poorly, oreso did well, maybe you can take something out of it.