Thread: Is only personal experience valid, or is experience + information better?

Ok, so then you have changed your original statement. Now you accept that findings made by other people are just as valid as those made by yourself. Because a true experientialist (at least as I understand it) rejects any knowledge that he didn't personally gather and check himself.

No, I was defending my original statement, and asking you how it would not be practical.
I don't reject information that I haven't proven to myself yet, I'm saying that it's not truly knowledge to me yet and only guidelines.

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue now? At first you confused me because you made 2 contradictory statements and I've been trying to figure out which one you actually support. Now I see, you don't believe experiments must be done by the same scientist in order to be valid. So you do accept information-sharing as a valid form of knowledge. Hence not an experientialsit.

Ok, now I see your edit. I don't mean for this to be an esoteric discussion about "what is Knowledge?" - I'm aiming more for trying to understand what the experientialist viewpoint really is - whether I understand it properly, and how people defend it.

Information gotten through other people may not be Knowledge, but as long as it comes from a source that seems valid I think it's acceptable to treat it almost as if it is. Otherwise we end up "knowing" very little indeed, and not being sure if what we know is true (because the true experientialist rejects science).

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

How so? I'm claiming that it's not necessary to personally experience something in order to call it knowledge.

Right, there are some things that do not require a personal expedition on (like if an anvil was 10 seconds close to falling on you, you would obviously try to DODGE it depending on prior information from what you saw from what other people tell you, or cartoons of Roadrunner, or the typical result of the laws of gravity itself rather than thinking "Hmmm what if this anvil dropped on me! I shall find out soon in 5..4...3...2..1..??").

And sometimes it's not necessary because again, with mortality, why would we want to waste time to prove something is right when we can just blindly accept it (or keep it into consideration).

I mean, with the billions of people here, you could try to personally verify to prove a point to the world or just for self-esteem and solace.

Yes, I do find myself contradicting what I said before about the schemata thing.

And on the issue brought up by Xei about information coming from Authority - where did the authority get their facts from? People made observations nd drew conclusions based solely on "common sense" without anyone bothering to do experiments to check things. Or even worse, they simply manufactured 'information' as propaganda. Nobody had any other recourse that to believe what they were told - if there had been science or an internet (or better yet both) they could have had other recourse. But without information-sharing to balance out the bad information there was no way to get any better info.

Yes, but that was BEFORE. Now there is the potential to weed out the bull-crap that authorities can manifest.

There's going to be gaps where something prevents others from escaping accepted beliefs, but that's the point of finding something that will allow someone to escape that belief to see if something is obviously wrong about it.


Competence in doing things will get results. And to go back to what you said about Earth and all, what about the sun? Obviously we cannot learn if it really is what it is unless we have the competence to actually go there without burning to a crisp.

But even with that accepted belief that we would burn before even getting there, it's the laws and rules that prevents us from doing so.

You are right. You don't necessarily need to experience that to find knowledge.

Yes, there are going to questions that will just have to be accepted through universal beliefs than going off into a wild tangent and finding out it wasn't worth doing it personally in the first place.

Now my mind is blown. Damn it. See now I can't justify my reasoning because I find myself contradicting what I thought before with a new belief. Do you see how I'm flawed here? That's how hard it is to try and explain things without realizing I'm escaping my accepted belief that makes me warm and fuzzy and content with reality.

That's why people (at least what I think) do not really tackle such queries because they'll usually end up going around in circles finding repeated information declared in a different syntax. X.X

I've re-named the thread to better reflect what I really wanted it to be about. Sorry I made a poor choice of words in the beginning.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

And on the issue brought up by Xei about information coming from Authority - where did the authority get their facts from? People made observations nd drew conclusions based solely on "common sense" without anyone bothering to do experiments to check things. Or even worse, they simply manufactured 'information' as propaganda. Nobody had any other recourse that to believe what they were told - if there had been science or an internet (or better yet both) they could have had other recourse. But without information-sharing to balance out the bad information there was no way to get any better info.

I'm not sure what your point is. The rational thing to do at the time would have been to reject anything that wasn't substantiated. There were also plenty of potential experiments and arguments which could have firmly ruled out many claims and expanded the sphere of knowledge.

Are you going to try to define knowledge..?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue now? At first you confused me because you made 2 contradictory statements and I've been trying to figure out which one you actually support. Now I see, you don't believe experiments must be done by the same scientist in order to be valid. So you do accept information-sharing as a valid form of knowledge. Hence not an experientialsit.

Ok, now I see your edit. I don't mean for this to be an esoteric discussion about "what is Knowledge?" - I'm aiming more for trying to understand what the experientialist viewpoint really is - whether I understand it properly, and how people defend it.

Information gotten through other people may not be Knowledge, but as long as it comes from a source that seems valid I think it's acceptable to treat it almost as if it is. Otherwise we end up "knowing" very little indeed, and not being sure if what we know is true (because the true experientialist rejects science).

Then this comes down to trust in authority, which I think contradicts the spirit of science. Whether it's practical or unfortunately not, I think the only way we can really know something is proving it to ourselves directly. This is why science requires assertions that are repeatable, it's based on the integrity of the individual experience.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

Right, there are some things that do not require a personal expedition on (like if an anvil was 10 seconds close to falling on you, you would obviously try to DODGE it depending on prior information from what you saw from what other people tell you, or cartoons of Roadrunner, or the typical result of the laws of gravity itself rather than thinking "Hmmm what if this anvil dropped on me! I shall find out soon in 5..4...3...2..1..??").

And sometimes it's not necessary because again, with mortality, why would we want to waste time to prove something is right when we can just blindly accept it (or keep it into consideration).

I mean, with the billions of people here, you could try to personally verify to prove a point to the world or just for self-esteem and solace.

Yes, I do find myself contradicting what I said before about the schemata thing.



Yes, but that was BEFORE. Now there is the potential to weed out the bull-crap that authorities can manifest.

There's going to be gaps where something prevents others from escaping accepted beliefs, but that's the point of finding something that will allow someone to escape that belief to see if something is obviously wrong about it.


Competence in doing things will get results. And to go back to what you said about Earth and all, what about the sun? Obviously we cannot learn if it really is what it is unless we have the competence to actually go there without burning to a crisp.

But even with that accepted belief that we would burn before even getting there, it's the laws and rules that prevents us from doing so.

You are right. You don't necessarily need to experience that to find knowledge.

Yes, there are going to questions that will just have to be accepted through universal beliefs than going off into a wild tangent and finding out it wasn't worth doing it personally in the first place.

Now my mind is blown. Damn it. See now I can't justify my reasoning because I find myself contradicting what I thought before with a new belief. Do you see how I'm flawed here? That's how hard it to try and explain things without realizing I'm escaping my accepted belief that makes me warm and fuzzy and content with reality.

You've just made me realize - I suppose astronauts do have direct experience that the earth is spherical. At least they have seen it and it must have looked spherical to them.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Then this comes down to trust in authority, which I think contradicts the spirit of science. Whether it's practical or unfortunately not, I think the only way we can really know something is proving it to ourselves directly. This is why science requires assertions that are repeatable, it's based on the integrity of the individual experience.

But you just said that you see no problem with archaeologists accepting experiments done by others - without the need to repeat those experiments. If you truly do accept experientialsim (which you're suggesting here that you do) then you reject science aside from any experiments you've actually done yourself. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I've re-named the thread to better reflect what I really wanted it to be about. Sorry I made a poor choice of words in the beginning.

Oh.
Personal experience usually leads to having a conservative mindset. If something can be solved through a certain method, it's normally more efficient to one to repeat those same principals to get something out of it)

Experience plus information can still compel one to have a conservative mindset, but having that information in the back of their head should they choose to go outside of the mindset is always better in my opinion.

Especially for perfectionists.

Personal experience usually leads to having a conservative mindset.

Excellent observation! I hadn't thought of that, but I think it's correct. Though I'd qualify it by saying "relying ONLY on personal experience.. "

I tend to be moderate with strong liberal leanings (nothing extreme). I can see that liberal/democratic is in keeping with the acceptance of information from diverse sources.

I'm not prepared to make any definitive statements about absolute Knowledge. I agree with Wayfaerer that trying to do so is slippery at best - probably impossible. I'm less interested in those kinds of abstractions than I am in the usefulness of information or experience in daily application.

All your saying is that your willing to take what other people say on complete faith, I do not. However, I do not reject all claims I have not experienced, I use them as guidelines of incentive to experience them myself. Call that whatever you want, I call it science. Your defining "information" as if it's purely other people's claims. Relatively valid information is based on mutual experience and so personal experience much more than you think.

So now you reject the other part of your earlier statement. Does this mean you also reject what you said about archeologists accepting the results of other archaeologists? Because a moment ago you said you see no problem with it. Now you seem to feel that those results are invalid unless a single scientist was responsible for all of them (and even then only that one scientist would be able to say anything meaningful about it).

Does this mean that you reject all scientific theories until you personally do enough experiments to verify them to yourself?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

All your saying is that your willing to take what other people say on faith, I do not. Call me whatever you want. It is a strange way to define "information" though, I think it's based on personal experience much more than you think.

Everyone has their way of understanding things, I agree with you, I won't be the type to insult how you think, especially with this topic.

If someone is here to try and insult your schemata, than they are just wasting their time. Which leads to subjective truths, it's easy to try and justify that their mindset is based on what people say on faith. But I don't think that's the point here.

I'm not going to try and turn-around and twist your logic here (hell I still question mine), but I do believe at some point, putting faith on what people say is going to be a very compelling option to consider.

Sure certain people may give off bad information, but that's what other people are here for (in terms of information-sharing that is). Think of it as downloading files with a torrent program. You leech from what was already downloaded and hope that it doesn't contain information that won't make sense to your purpose of downloading it in the first place (and hopefully not some company trying to see who is trying to pirate their copyrighted information)

EDIT: (don't know why I quoted myself there in the accidental double post, sorry about that).

@Darkmatters, I don't think he would try to disagree with all scientific theories.

When you're dealing with experience in the realms of science, Scientist in general have to work TOGETHER, there is no one man army in finding the answer or cure for something. (But if someone bases things only from personal experience for the sake of science, that would actually be counterproductive because they're going to focus on one aspect while others focus on their own, come together, and see how they can combine them)

Like finding a solution to eradicate cancer. Sure someone can find a way to eliminate the cancer cells or HIV, but getting information from other scientists can help find a solution in case this presumed "cure" cannot tackle with the mutation of the cells.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So now you reject the other part of your earlier statement. Does this mean you also reject what you said about archeologists accepting the results of other archaeologists? Because a moment ago you said you see no problem with it. Now you seem to feel that those results are invalid unless a single scientist was responsible for all of them (and even then only that one scientist would be able to say anything meaningful about it).

Does this mean that you reject all scientific theories until you personally do enough experiments to verify them to yourself?

I never said that, I said it shouldn't be that difficult for an archaeologist to witness enough fossils that constitute enough evidence for him for evolution. Why do you keep saying reject? I'm not rejecting anything.

I didn't see anybody insulting anybody? I think when Wayfaerer said "Call me whatever you will" he meant because I was calling him an experientialist (and even though I don't personally subscribe to that viewpoint, calling someone that is not intended as an insult). I've merely been asking him questions in an attempt to clarify his position on this. It sounds like he wants it both ways - to say that he doesn't trust anything he didn't personally verify himself through personal experience, and to believe in science.

But he did say earlier something to the effect that his definition of personal experience includes information you've read, so I guess that's what he's referring to. Not a strict experientialist then. Maye a weak experientialist?

For pusrposes of being clear in this covnversation I've been using strict definitions of the term "personal experience" - meaning something that requires absolutely no trust but that you've literally done yourself. So I suppose we're just having a difference of semantics.

I didn't see anybody insulting anybody? I think when Wayfaerer said "Call me whatever you will" he meant because I was calling him an experientialist

I thought it was just his way of defending something. I'm sorry about that. >.<

I made an edit in the last post about the theories.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It sounds like he wants it both ways - to say that he doesn't trust anything he didn't personally verify himself through personal experience, and to believe in science.

My point is these are synonymous.

Well, you obviously accept all this information without personally having seen thousands of fossils. Therefore you do not require personal experience in order to consider something factual.

I haven't witnessed the deepest evidence there is, but there is a wide variety of observations that point to one conclusion that seems unthreatened by alternatives by comparison. It's a more primitive form of science I suppose but it works the same way.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I haven't witnessed the deepest evidence there is, but there is a wide variety of observations that point to one conclusion that seems unthreatened by alternatives by comparison.

Well, unless you're an archaeologist, I think it's clear now where you stand on the issue. You agree with me that personal experience isn't necessary and that at least when it comes to science we can safely accept things other people tell us unless and until those findings are overturned. You just made it confusing because you kept saying that you only trust personal experience.

I'm hoping to hear from some experientialists on the issue.

Cultural evolution covers this a bit, under on the topic of transmission biases. Transmission biases are how we bias the information we take in. It gets pretty complex but some of the basic kinds of biases are things like frequency-dependent (commonly known as conformity), model-dependent (as in: from an authority), and content-dependent (learner actually judging the quality of information).

Anyway, part of transmission bias theory includes the adaptive benefits of social learning vs asocial learning, which is exactly what this thread is about, no?. There are models in place to predict what conditions would cause one to be better than another. The short version is that it's usually better to learn from others because it involves less risk (being the first to eat a new food is always dangerous), but the trade-off is that if the environment changes rapidly, asocial learning becomes more adaptive because information learned form others becomes less reliable. It bears mentioning that these models are meant to work for any species that uses social learning, which is a hell of a lot. But they work just as well for humans, albeit with a less philosophical/epistemological ring.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, unless you're an archaeologist, I think it's clear now where you stand on the issue. You agree with me that personal experience isn't necessary and that at least when it comes to science we can safely accept things other people tell us unless and until those findings are overturned. You just made it confusing because you kept saying that you only trust personal experience.

I'm hoping to hear from some experientialists on the issue.

I don't know why your confused, I do only trust personal experience. It was from personal experience that I observed the evidence of scientist's conclusion that life evolves into different species: I've witnessed our striking similarity to apes and all other life forms for that matter, I've witnessed breeds of dog obviously a product of artificial selection that would never be able to survive in the wild, I've noticed traits being passed down from parent to child, I've witnessed mutation, even beneficial ones. The observation that no other theory stands to compete with such accessible evidence is scientific proof enough.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I don't know why your confused, I do only trust personal experience. It was from personal experience that I observed the evidence of scientist's conclusion that life evolves into different species:

Oh, so by your definition then anything I've ever read about I can now call my own personal experience?