I think there's a medium ground. Rationalism and empiricism in the historical sense are interesting philosophies, good to study.
The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all.
Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent.
I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.
The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all.
Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent.
I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.