perception and evidence: forum for week of 10 Oct

I find that Mo is the winner here. From the argument, I can tell that for every reason supporting empiricism Shmo can come up with, Mo can find an argument against it. Whatever Shmo says in defense of empiricism, Mo can argue that "those are merely opinions/prejudices". For example, Shmo says "Nature has a way of giving evidence that cuts through the firmest convictions." The evidence provided by Nature is open to perception, if the perception that provides data can be obscured by prejudice and opinions, why can't the evidence provided by Nature be as well?

I don't agree with Mo, but I guess you can't really completely justify empiricism. However, the results empiricism has provided has evidently benefited mankind.