becomes a species of Rationalism:
You know, at some point, Empiricism does indeed devolve into a kind of Rationalism. And the two kind of merge, really. Because at some point there has to be an explanation of what is meant by the numbers. And that meaning is not itself totally empirically derived. It rests on a foundation of logic (Rationalism). So at that point it is indeed a distant conceptual cousin of Rationalism, not pure empiricism at all.
Even so, there really IS a difference in emphasis between the two approaches. While the numbers truly do not meaningfully exist outside of our conceptualization and explanation of them, Rationalism exalts this theoretical explanation above anything else—certainly above the data. The bottom line “reality“ is the conceptualization. The data are just ornaments hung on the tree of this conceptualization. So again, this is a major (and often not understood) difference in emphasis.
Oh yes, there is a difference in style. But neither approach is totally devoid of the other side. It is far more a matter of emphasis. So it is true that the Conservative/Empiricist side makes the facts much more crucial and then uses (Rationalistic) logic along with the observed data in the argument, while the Leftist/Rationalist side mostly ignores or avoids the data (except when it bolsters their argument). Their focus is mainly on the “beauty“ of the idea—the internal “conceptual satisfying-ness” if you will. And for them, explanatory power is NOT the only mouth to be fed! There is Lefty orthodoxy, after all…
For Conservatives/Empiricists, facts are the basic “bricks” of an explanation. For Leftists, facts are merely the decorative mortar that, in 70s fashion, oozes out between the bricks of their pre-conceived notions (like extruded mortar joints).
Of course, these extruded joints are inherently less stable, long-term. Just like Lefty Rationalism…