[PHS Philip]

Any individual event can be hard to explain for several reasons. First, ordinary life has many things going on at once. You can't isolate a single thing that changed when something occurred. Second, there are many well known, commonplace neurological effects that create a wide spectrum of different experiences including ghosts, deja vu, religious/spiritual experiences, and alien abduction. Third, you do not account for the placebo effect in your thinking, and it's almost impossible to do without a large sample. Fourth, you are not an expert in the field so you are likely to miss important facts. Fifth, you are often mistaken whether through misobserving something or misremembering things (your memory routinely fills in details or even manufactures entire, detailed memories. It is not static or entirely reliable). Sixth, a sample size of one can not present meaningful results because chance plays too large a role at that level.

I know I'm missing a few, but those were the main points I could think of off the top of my head.

[Monte314]

Interesting list of sources of confusion and uncertainty. Descartes addressed this question in his "Meditation".

If you believe in empirical science, however, at some point experience does become evidence... in fact, the only thing qualified to be called evidence. The very heart of the scientific method is systematic characterization of experience by principled, repeatable experiences. (Of course, we call these experiences "observation and experimentation", but that's just a term denoting a particular kind of quantifiable experience.)

Is this consistent with your view? If so, what is the practical difference between experience that is evidentiary, and that which is not?

[PHS Philip]

I think that's more arguing over what I mean. I was referring to personal, anecdotal evidence. I guess eventually the problem is that you have to assume that reality is observable, but if that assumption is made (and it has to be, since no action is possible without it), then evidence gathered by experiment, controlled situation, etc is much more likely to be representative than uncontrolled, anecdotal experience.

(And yes, dealing with subjective things like pain does introduce more difficulty, but a larger sample size helps with that, as do certain experimental techniques for placing pain on a more objective scale, although that method isn't perfect by any means).

[Synamon]

This reminded me of the misquote "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Personal accounts are data, but they are discrete and their value should be weighted accordingly. Two is a coincidence and 5 is a party. I agree with you that there are margins of error that are often ignored when examining experiences. Our brains are the measuring tool for experiences instead of a thermometer or whatever. Sure there is human error, but our minds can also measure things that equipment can't. So you can't throw the experiences out with the bathwater, they are useful.

[Superunknown]

Originally Posted by PHS Philip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Any individual event can be hard to explain for several reasons. First, ordinary life has many things going on at once. You can't isolate a single thing that changed when something occurred. Second, there are many well known, commonplace neurological effects that create a wide spectrum of different experiences including ghosts, deja vu, religious/spiritual experiences, and alien abduction. Third, you do not account for the placebo effect in your thinking, and it's almost impossible to do without a large sample. Fourth, you are not an expert in the field so you are likely to miss important facts. Fifth, you are often mistaken whether through misobserving something or misremembering things (your memory routinely fills in details or even manufactures entire, detailed memories. It is not static or entirely reliable). Sixth, a sample size of one can not present meaningful results because chance plays too large a role at that level. I know I'm missing a few, but those were the main points I could think of off the top of my head.

One of the first rules I learned in my Methods of Research class is this: "experience does not equal science." Experience (as well as intuition) can perhaps act as a guide (for instance, it is from my experience that I shouldn't swallow a penny), but it alone cannot be evidence for the validity of "x". That is what scientific research is for. The research either proves or disproves the validity of the certain experiences.

[nacht]

Experiences != Science.

They do equal evidence however, they just should be weighted based on reliability and other factors. This is a standard bayesian approach.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you believe in empirical science, however, at some point experience does become evidence... in fact, the only thing qualified to be called evidence. The very heart of the scientific method is systematic characterization of experience by principled, repeatable experiences.

Blast, Monte, you stole my observation and made it better!

Reading about other people practicing science is often extremely useful, but it is not the same as practicing science yourself. And once you do a fair amount of the latter, you realize what a small proportion of what exists in the world has been characterized in a form that is readily accessible. Despite this, you still have to make decisions.

Observation is science.

Uncertainty is science.

Building the mistakes of tomorrow today is engineering :D

[LionsPride]

Thanks for that thought PHS Philip! I'm not sure I can accurately describe why I like what you posted. I think it has to do with the fact that not many people I know or deal with regularly actually understand the subjectiveness of thought. After dealing with them for long periods of time I forget to question my own observations. Hearing this rational retort to the value of personal experience as evidence is the equivalent to finally having a physical voice supporting the other side. I feel somehow refreshed.