Experience: First Blood Part Deux

I tire of hearing the experience argument. I am not the first nor the last to be challenged with the question upon my experience. History is the study of man's past.
Ludwig von Mises in his great treatise, Human Action, sums it up:

If we speak of history, what we have in mind is only the history of human action, whose specific mental tool is understanding.[....] The subject matter of all historical sciences is the past. They cannot teach us anything which would be valid for all human actions, that is, for the future too. The study of history makes a man wise and judicious. But it does not by itself provide any knowledge and skill which could be utilized for handling concrete tasks. [...] The human mind is not a tabula rasa(blank slate) on which the external events write their own history. It is equipped with a set of tools for grasping reality. Man acquired these tools, i.e., the logical structure of his mind in the course of his evolution from an amoeba to his present state. But these tools are logically prior to any experience. [....] Experience merely directs our curiousity toward certain problems and diverts it from other problems. It tells us what we should explore, but it does not tell us how we could proceed in our search for knowledge. Moreover, it is not instances, it is necessary to investigate unrealizable hypothetical conditions in order to conceive what is going on in the real world.

In his book Theory and History, Mises opens with an introduction to dismantle the experience argument. He points that to have any understanding, man looks to history for regularity.

A stone is a thing that reacts in a definite way. Men react to the same stimuli in different ways, and the same man at different instants of time may react in ways different from his previous or later conduct. It is impossible to group men into classes whose members always react in the same way.[...] Experience is always experience of past happenings. It refers to what has been and is no longer, to events sunk forever in the flux of time. [...] The most experience can teach us is: in all cases observed in the past there was an ascertainable regularity. [...] Nobody says that stones thrown into the air at an angle of 45 degrees will frequently fall down to earth or that a human limb lost by an accident frequently does not grow again. All our thinking and all our actions are guided by the knowledge that in such cases we are not faced with frequent repetition of the same connection, but with regular repetition. [...] The apriori forms and categories of human thinking and reasoning cannot be traced back to something of which they would appear as the logically necessary conclusion. It is contradictory to expect that logic could be of any service in demonstrating the correctness or validity of the fundamental logical principles. All that can be said about them is that to deny their correctness or validity appears to the human mind nonsensical and that thinking, guided by them, has led to modes of successful acting.