[marksc]

Their "reasoned" arguments come from their own sensory experience directly and they are aware of that.

Do you think a deaf, blind person, with no feeling, and no awareness of their own body would grow up to be able to make reasoned arguments? Of course not. Why not? Because they had no sense experience.

Good empiricists go further and acknowledge that their reasoning is only as good as their sensory organs, including and especially their brain with all of its cognitive quirks.

A good empiricist will acknowledge, for example, that "healthy" "normal" human minds are terrible at solving certain moral problems while "unhealthy" "psychopathic" minds are demonstrably better. This flies in the face of the rationalist argument that healthy humans are fundamentally rational creatures.

[hyperpape]

You've missed the point, and seem to think I'm arguing for Rationalism. I'm doing no such thing, which makes your arguments for Empiricism irrelevant.

[Nomentatus]

Logical opposition is not a concept I'm discussing - conflict between groups and thoughts, is.