They can call themselves empiricists all they like, it only takes a few exposures to their number to come away with a firm conviction (or, let's say, updated prior?) that they are not.
First-principles reasoning and the selection of convenient priors are consistently preferenced over the slow, grinding work of iterative empiricism and the humility to commit to observation before making overly broad theoretical claims.
The former let you seem right about something right now. The latter more often than not lead you to discover you are wrong (in interesting ways) much later on.
Who are all the rationalists you guys are reading?
I read the NYT and rat blogs all the time. And the NYT is not the one that's far more likely to deeply engage with the research and studies on the topic.
First-principles reasoning and the selection of convenient priors are consistently preferenced over the slow, grinding work of iterative empiricism and the humility to commit to observation before making overly broad theoretical claims.
The former let you seem right about something right now. The latter more often than not lead you to discover you are wrong (in interesting ways) much later on.