Of course, and neither am I capable of proving that we do (nor, I presume, are you or anyone).
Always a worthwhile task in philosophy (usually the only one that needs doing!).
This all depends heavily on how you’re defining psychological, logical, natural science, etc. On the surface, you appear to be talking about consensus reality and empiricism, quite divorced from Mises’s strict methodological individualism - but that all depends on how we untangle your language to its appropriate context (told you it’s usually the only task that needs doing ). For instance, if you’re talking about normal scientific investigation, this approach has obviously worked quite well. “Logic” means a million different things. Economics - that’s a big can of worms. As for pleasure, I am using the term to mean nothing more and nothing less than a particular subjective physical sensation I feel, and that I presume you are also familiar with (covered in detail in the Grayson-Neoclassical debate and sidelines).
On Long and his take on Mises and Wittgenstein, see my very partial response here (that whole thread contains probably the best elucidation of my position on epistemology so far).