The theory of natural selection was originally rejected by positivists because it does not conform to that model of science (which physics supposedly epitomises.) Various sciences use different methods. Positivists need to rid of their (frankly ridiculous) strait-jacket and move with the times.
Furthermore, I contend that if a priori reasoning exists at all, then it is evolutionarily contingent, a biological trait,
At best, the ability to engage in those forms of justification is. Not the actual possibility of such justification.
and thus is not necessarily sound;
Well then empiricism is in shitloads of trouble, to put it mildly, since it relies on several a priori principles in and of itself.
that is, for us to believe any reasoning whatsoever, it must generally cohere with our empirical knowledge (i.e., confirmation holism). There is no foundation that offers us “irrefutable” truths or “apodictic certainty.”
Pure assertion of an apodeictic nature in and of itself. You need logical reasoning to even establish empirical knowledge to begin with. Frankly, you need to do some reading on this as you are bringing up amateurish arguments.
As Georges Rey states, “Appeals to some special faculty of a priori intuition capable of unproblematically apprehending clear and distinct ideas, or forms in Plato’s heaven, do seem little better than theological claims about the deliverances of revelation.”
Again, pure assertion. How does he make inductive leaps? How does he justify the observation of facts (as opposed to mere sensations)? What if contradictions in this “Holistic” system appear? Why does coherence matter? Why should contradictions be resolved? Why should one holistic system be preferred over another?
The fact that Mises and Rothbard justified their a priori faith differently should suggest something is amiss.
Because you quoted an epistemological theory and some guy who merely makes rather blatant assertions on a priori intuition? Yes, truly gutted.