Is Personal Experience Evidence?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about a group experience? We might say "what they experienced" must have been such and such. We would count two people experience as valid if they were both at the place of some shared event?

How about if 30,000 - 100,000 people claimed that they witnessed something? From Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia

“The Miracle of the Sun was an event which occurred on 13 October 1917, attended by a large crowd who had gathered near Fátima, Portugal in response to a prophecy made by three shepherd children that the Virgin Mary, referred to as Our Lady of Fatima, would appear and perform miracles on that date. Newspapers published testimony from reporters and other people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity, such as the sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.

“Estimates of the number of people present range from 30,000 and 40,000, by Avelino de Almeida writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by lawyer Dr. José Almeida Garrett, the son of a professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra.

“There has been much analysis of the event from critical sociological and scientific perspectives. According to critics, the eyewitness testimony was actually a collection of inconsistent and contradictory accounts. Proposed alternate explanations include witnesses being deceived by their senses due to prolonged staring at the sun and then seeing what they had come to the site expecting to see something unusual.”​

Do you believe them? I don't.

It is often said that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and I agree. But I would say that the absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. The problem here is that such an event should have been witnessed in every place from which the sun was visible at that time, and nobody else in a remote location reported seeing this alleged miracle.

 

[Sunstone]

There are different types of evidence.

Personal experience is evidence, however, it is anecdotal evidence. Unless it can be measured and quantified, cannot be qualified as empirical.

I'm familiar with the word "empirical" as meaning, "obtained through the senses", but I'm not familiar with how you seem to be defining the world here. Would you please elaborate on your definition?

 

[ChristineM]

Is personal experience evidence?

Only if it can be shown to be true or valid

 

[idav]

How about if 30,000 - 100,000 people claimed that they witnessed something? From Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia

“The Miracle of the Sun was an event which occurred on 13 October 1917, attended by a large crowd who had gathered near Fátima, Portugal in response to a prophecy made by three shepherd children that the Virgin Mary, referred to as Our Lady of Fatima, would appear and perform miracles on that date. Newspapers published testimony from reporters and other people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity, such as the sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.

“Estimates of the number of people present range from 30,000 and 40,000, by Avelino de Almeida writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by lawyer Dr. José Almeida Garrett, the son of a professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra.

“There has been much analysis of the event from critical sociological and scientific perspectives. According to critics, the eyewitness testimony was actually a collection of inconsistent and contradictory accounts. Proposed alternate explanations include witnesses being deceived by their senses due to prolonged staring at the sun and then seeing what they had come to the site expecting to see something unusual.”​

Do you believe them? I don't.

It is often said that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and I agree. But I would say that the absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. The problem here is that such an event should have been witnessed in every place from which the sun was visible at that time, and nobody else in a remote location reported seeing this alleged miracle.

I agree recollections are flawed to the point of being useless sometimes but it can be said that if Jane and Doe were there it is safe to assume they witnessed the same event. They might even be aware of a conspiracy that only the people at the event know about, like they all talked about it and decided to lie. Like a group of people decide to just falsify event to try and stay out of trouble for example. There is no way to validate short of being there or video evidence. What if someone recorded the event from multiple angles, does that spread the experience?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm familiar with the word "empirical" as meaning, "obtained through the senses", but I'm not familiar with how you seem to be defining the world here. Would you please elaborate on your definition?

*smilies* Still enjoying my first cup of coffee of the day and used the wrong term. Empirical and anecdotal mean nearly the same thing. I suppose the word I was looking for is scientific evidence, i.e. evidence that can be presented as fact.

 

[Mister Silver]

but it can be said that if Jane and Doe were there it is safe to assume they witnessed the same event.

Studies of eye witness testimony shows that two or more people who witness an event will likely all differently describe what was seen. The differences may be small, such as the killer having red hair as told by one witness and the same killer having dark black hair as told by another witness. It is why eye witness testimony is basically unreliable.

 

[idav]

Studies of eye witness testimony shows that two or more people who witness an event will likely all differently describe what was seen. The differences may be small, such as the killer having red hair as told by one witness and the same killer having dark black hair as told by another witness. It is why eye witness testimony is basically unreliable.

Yes it's unreliable but it's not a lie to say the two people experienced the event, if they were in fact there. I would bet two people experiencing an event dont need evidence like the outsiders does. It also depends on what an outsider is trying to gain. If your just trying to gauge the overall experience may be a bit easier than demanding people's hair color. Like if someone said there was a flash flood that's pretty straight forward, of course details vary.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Only if it can be shown to be true or valid

And you would do that how? With personal experience?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think it might be the only type of evidence. Can you experience anything that isn't personal?

Alone? No. But is it still personal if the experience is shared?

 

[Sunstone]

But is it still personal if the experience is shared?

I think that epistemically, it is surely still personal experience even if in some other sense of the word "experience" it is shared.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes . We would know nothing without it. It is the starting point for all knowledge.

I disagree with that. I think knowledge can have many starting points. Cogito ergo sum for example is doubt in all personal experience and reject it all in its search for truth. Curiosity may also be a starting point for knowledge, just as reason can as well.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think that epistemically, it is surely still personal experience even if in some other sense of the word "experience" it is shared.

Then what do we do when personal experience is not evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

And you would do that how? With personal experience.

Third party corroboration, physical evidence. You know the sort of thing, the stuff that makes it verifiable.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Third party corroboration, physical evidence. You know the sort of thing, the stuff that makes it verifiable.

Sounds like more personal experience.

 

[Sunstone]

Cogito ergo sum for example is doubt in all personal experience and reject it all in its search for truth.

I'm confused. As I understand it, Decartes rejected (initially at least) empirical evidence for the existence of anything, but accepted the experience of thinking as evidence for existence of something. In other words, the "Cogito" is not a rejection of all personal experience, as I understand it. What am I overlooking?

Curiosity may also be a starting point for knowledge, just as reason can as well.

But would you consider those to be epistemic starting points?

 

[ChristineM]

Sounds like more personal experience.

If it cannot be shown to be truthful or validated in some way then it falls outside the bounds of evidence, sure it may be personal experience, but not evidence.

 

[Sunstone]

Then what do we do when personal experience is not evidence?

Can you give an example of when personal experience is not evidence?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm confused. As I understand it, Decartes rejected (initially at least) empirical evidence for the existence of anything, but accepted the experience of thinking as evidence for existence of something. In other words, the "Cogito" is not a rejection of all personal experience, as I understand it. What am I overlooking?



But would you consider those to be epistemic starting points?

"What am I overlooking?"

I don't agree with your interpretation, as it is about the act more so than the experience; I do therefore I am. However, that is not really relevant as we are talking about starting points and in cogito ergo sum doubt is the stating point. At first all personal experience must be rejected to reach this truth, so even if you think the end results is about experience doubt is the starting point.

“Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.”—Aristotle

"But would you consider those to be epistemic starting points?"

I believe I already said that I do.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Can you give an example of when personal experience is not evidence?

Ever suffered schizophrenic delusions? They are not evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ever suffered schizophrenic delusions? They are not evidence.

Presumably they are evidence of schizophrenia.

There is, in my opinion, a difference between:

1. {X} is evidence.
2. {X} is evidence of {Y}.