Does "empirical evidence" challenge "scriptural authority"?

In his talk titled, Science at the Crossroads , the Dalai Lama said, > On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. 1. With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", when does empirical evidence "triumph over" or even challenge, scriptural authority? 2. Is the Dalai Lama's point of view confirmed or contradicted by other points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus?