You're not even arguing against me right now. I don't deny the importance of reflection or reason. I am simply defending the claim that all knowledge is first derived from the senses.

Also, you could argue that, sensibility exists without reason, when you take a look at the animal kingdom. Whereas reason CANNOT exist without the sensibility. Imagine you're born into a world cut off from all the senses; impossible, since there would be nothing.

Thus it follows that sensibility is the independent and reason the dependant, it wholly relies on the subject to be able to perceive through sensibility.

No, it isn't, since the claim of empiricism is that all knowledge is derived from experience. It doesn't matter what analysis is done afterwards, considering that it wouldn't exist in the first place without the sensibility picking up on raw datum from the physical world.

The main thing to understand here is that none of your examples given here could be discovered through pure rationalism.

Descartes, for example, could not sit on his armchair and -- without any observation -- come to the conclusion of a black hole. What empiricism is saying, and what you've already said in your previous answers, is that to deductively assert the proposition of a black hole, we still need to observe 'around' the black hole, or however you want to put it.

To conclude, take observe out of your argument, and you have nothing, it must first be derived from the senses, even if that entity is not directly observable, it is inferible from previous observations of other empirical phenomena.