So how can we have knowledge based on observations that rely on our senses or are measured by tools constructed by the foundational rubric of our sens

In response to this question below:
Comte states the reality of this question, or at least questions like it that send our minds in a vicious cycle on page 9. "That it is clearly impossible to solve such questions is shown by the fact that, whenever an attempt has been made to give a rational explanation of the matter, the greatest thinkers have only been able to define one of these principles by the other. Attraction is defined as nothing but universal wight, and weight is said to consist of simply in terrestrial attraction." To me Comte is saying that questions such as the one regarding the unreliable essence of our senses are not subject matter of positive philosophy; "we therefore rightly abandon them to the imagination of the theologians or the subtleties of the metaphysicians." its not that the questions isn't entirely valid, but its not for the positive philosophy.
And concerning the question regarding the evolution of the educational system, to me
Comte is talking about not simply viewing the each specialized science as specialized, but seeing beyond the "artificial divisions" and seeing the connection between the sciences. It kinda sounds like Comte is all about the liberal arts education.