Is Personal Experience Evidence?

[Sunstone]

"What am I overlooking?"

I don't I 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.

Thank you for the clarification! Doubt, curiosity, and reason are not generally considered to be "epistemic" starting points for knowledge as philosophers and most interested laypeople define "epistemic", but of course you're free to define your terms any way you want. And I do believe I see the sense in which you are stating that doubt, curiosity, and reason are starting points. I would agree with you that they are indeed starting points in that important sense.

I would disagree with you, however, that the sense in which you are making your claim has anything to do with the sense in which @Curious George was making his claim.

 

[Sunstone]

Ever suffered schizophrenic delusions? They are not evidence.

Are they not evidence of schizophrenia?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is personal experience evidence?

Am I reliable? Do you trust me? Then my personal experience is evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Are they not evidence of schizophrenia?

You sound like my mother, she expects crazy people to be able to tell when they are crazy. If we are talking about personal experience then no they are not. They are not just mere hallucinations.

Imagine you saw a pink flying elephant. Now in your right mind you might analyze the appearance and conclude that it is an hallucinations. That is what a sane person does.

Delusions on the other hand are more reaching. You would never get a chance to analyze, you would never get a chance to doubt, you never get a chance at all. The I is removed from the process and the brain commands that there is a pink flying elephant.

If evidence is that which leads us towards fact and truth this is not evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Without knowledge gained from the outside world (personal experience) how do you get past 'I think therefor I am'?

 

[YmirGF]

So do you believe humans walked on the Moon?

Yes.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Without knowledge gained from the outside world (personal experience) how do you get past 'I think therefor I am'?

Get pass? He didn't start out with "I think therefore I am", that is where he ended.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes.

But you can't duplicate this. So then why is it different?

 

[Windwalker]

So if I said I just experienced God would you consider that evidence of God?

Actual experience is evidence. How much value it holds objectively depends if others independently describe similar things in their experiences, factoring of course for cultural conditioning. If you have people of multiple disparate cultures all describing the same thing in similar ways, that becomes stronger objective evidence of "something" the one culture may call "God", while others use similar but different descriptions, such as Emptiness, or Nirvana, etc.

 

[Sunstone]

You sound like my mother, she expects crazy people to be able to tell when they are crazy.

I can assure that is not my own expectation and that you are putting words in my mouth.

If we are talking about personal experience then no they are not. They are not just mere hallucinations.

Imagine you saw a pink flying elephant. Now in your right mind you might analyze the appearance and conclude that it is an hallucinations. That is what a sane person does.

Delusions on the other hand are more reaching. You would never get a chance to analyze, you would never get a chance to doubt, you never a chance at all. The I is removed from the process and the brain commands that there is a pink flying elephant.

If evidence is that which leads us towards fact and truth this is not evidence.

So, to be certain that I understand you, would you say that a fact or state of affairs cannot be evidence for something unless it is properly understood?

I'm not interested in debating the point, just want to understand your POV.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I can assure that is not my own expectation and that you are putting words in my mouth.



So, to be certain that I understand you, would you say that a fact or state of affairs cannot be evidence for something unless it is properly understood?

I'm not interested in debating the point, just want to understand your POV.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying personal experience is not always evidence. Full stop.

 

[YmirGF]

But you can't duplicate this. So then why is it different?

It's tied to the level of authority I attach to the speaker of the claims. Plus I watched the moon landings with avid interest as a child. It didn't seem faked to me or to anyone else in that era. If you claim to have experienced god, I simply do not put any trust in your personal authority. Simple enough?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I can assure that is not my own expectation and that you are putting words in my mouth.

You say that but then you continue with a question where you think reason is still a factor. I could never make her understand either, and she is a very intelligent woman.

 

[Sunstone]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying personal experience is not always evidence. Full stop.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Sunstone]

You say that but then you continue with a question where you think reason is still a factor. I could never make her understand either, and she is a very intelligent woman.

I think you have misunderstood my question to imply what you say it implies. But this is a trivial matter. I won't indulge in arguing with you over what I think or don't think in this matter.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think you have misunderstood my question to imply what you say it implies. But this is a trivial matter. I won't indulge in arguing with you over what I think or don't think in this matter.

Your loss, there is a lot to be learned. It is the mind processing thought and interacting with the world in a very different way. It is all wrong of course but it does help with putting normal rational thought into better light. To be honest some people may not be able to help but having certain expectations and they may not even recognize the occurrence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's tied to the level of authority I attach to the speaker of the claims. Plus I watched the moon landings with avid interest as a child. It didn't seem faked to me or to anyone else in that era. If you claim to have experienced god, I simply do not put any trust in your personal authority. Simple enough?

Maybe you have not heard, but I am always right about everything that I am not wrong about and I have ultimate personal authority over that. So do you believe me now?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is personal experience evidence?

the best kind, everything else is taking someone's word for it!

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe you have not heard, but I am always right about everything that I am not wrong about and I have ultimate personal authority over that. So do you believe me now?

Nope. I apply a sliding scale of authority, based on my own critical thinking and judgment. Though interesting and entertaining, imho, your claims lack credibility and therefore garner a credibility score of 0%. In essence, everyone is always right about everything they are not wrong about, so that appeal has about as much merit as claiming water is wet AS IF that were news. It's not. That you have ultimate personal authority over your own perceptions is also a gimmie and therefore not compelling evidence of anything noteworthy.

 

[Sunstone]

the best kind, everything else is taking someone's word for it!

Do you ever run into situations in which someone else is right and you are wrong? And given the vastness of human knowledge these days, are those situations more or less frequent?