Is Personal Experience Evidence?

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

Yes, it used to happen all the time when I was an atheist

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

If no one was around to touch the water would it still be wet?

 

[Curious George]

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

Yes...wait what do you mean by shared? If we are both there, it was still experienced through our person. That your relaying your personal story corroborates mine strengthens the value we attach to evidence. Similarly, if the experience is repeatable then this strengthens the value even more.

If you are talking about an experience that happens that each us experience in the exact same way-like science fiction stuff-and sharing ends, then I would still say that it is personal as it is rememberered but maybe communal as it happens. It is tough because so much of our experience is how we interpret our world and as long as the two people start as individuals then their interpretations will be different. So, I am not sure what a such an experience would be.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Tagged the wrong George...I followed it back.

But, on the topic of Descart, thinking was the starting point. Doubt necessitates thought. So to doubt you have to think which means we cannot doubt that we think. (Well actually we can, but we cannot doubt that thinking exists).

So Descartes tried to remove all assumptions until he found one that could not be removed. That assumption was a personal experience.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, it used to happen all the time when I was an atheist

How charming that you are no longer able to tell when you're wrong, now that you've left atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How charming that you are no longer able to tell when you're wrong, now that you've left atheism.

I know one thing for sure, my opinion on all this is totally unreliable!

 

[sun rise]

Are you saying that a claim must meet some test for validity in order to be considered "evidence"? If so, what is that test, in your opinion? What are the grounds for asserting that a claim must meet it? And if those grounds are compelling for anyone but you, then why are they compelling?

Not looking for a debate here, just clarification.

There are fakes in India who claim to have had certain experiences, achieved certain states who fleece the gullible. There are those who sincerely believe that they have had experiences who have not in fact. Beyond this, there are those who have had experiences that have worn off making no permanent change in them.

So from my perspective, first having had a true experience is not a big deal unless it results in a permanent change in themselves. I know people like that whose life has changed, over time, because of an experience they had.

A classic example of this change in the West is Saint Francis of Assisi who was a playboy until he had an experience so profound that his life changed utterly. Not all experiences make that dramatic a change - sometimes an atheist will start believing that there is a God, for example.

So to answer your question compelling evidence is that an experience is followed by a change in someone's life. Otherwise the experience might be true but it's not compelling.

 

[Sunstone]

There are fakes in India who claim to have had certain experiences, achieved certain states who fleece the gullible. There are those who sincerely believe that they have had experiences who have not in fact. Beyond this, there are those who have had experiences that have worn off making no permanent change in them.

So from my perspective, first having had a true experience is not a big deal unless it results in a permanent change in themselves. I know people like that whose life has changed, over time, because of an experience they had.

A classic example of this change in the West is Saint Francis of Assisi who was a playboy until he had an experience so profound that his life changed utterly. Not all experiences make that dramatic a change - sometimes an atheist will start believing that there is a God, for example.

So to answer your question compelling evidence is that an experience is followed by a change in someone's life. Otherwise the experience might be true but it's not compelling.

Quite interesting thoughts! I'm in substantial agreement with you. However, I don't think you're addressing my question, which seems to me to be on an entirely different topic. No matter though.

 

[Willamena]

Is personal experience evidence?

Evidence is literally something that points at something else being true.

What is experience supposed to be evidence of in your question? What does it support?

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

The question here, then, is whether your testimony is evidence of your experience.

An experience is just experience.

 

[1robin]

Is personal experience evidence?

For the one who had it, it is. Personal experience is the basis for most of what we know to begin with. By "know" I mean to have a high level of confidence.

 

[YmirGF]

If no one was around to touch the water would it still be wet?

Of course it would be as it is still water.

 

[Nakosis]

Is personal experience evidence?

Sure, it's just not reliable. So you take steps to validate your experiences. I mean if you want to bother convincing someone else the truth of your experience.

The Bible is someone else's experiences, (evidence). I just don't find them credible as there is no way to validate them.

 

[Nakosis]

That's a nice, trick question. Of course anyone can say anything. And some who say they've experienced God are psychotic and some are not. And some who are sincere might think they've experienced God when they've not. And so forth.

A better question is "how do we evaluate the claim of someone who said they've had an experience of God"?

They have to come up with someway to provide validation for that experience that you find credible.

 

[Sanzbir]

To the self, yes, provided you corroborate that observation with the other standards of knowledge: logic, illumination, etc. Observation is alone insufficient without its counterparts.

To others no. And it should not be used as such.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Is personal experience evidence?

A personal experience is an experience for the person who experienced it. It is not an evidence. An evidence needs to be verifiable by others. So, for example, if at court, judge asks for the evidence, that person says, my own experience is the evidence, then the judge needs to verify that experiment or event indeed happened. For that the judge needs to verify the truth of claim, based on evidence that he can also see, or understand.