--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > snip
> > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong
> > expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on
> > it? N.
>
>
> The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might
> be a better source of information about what happened that caused the
> crash. In fact if you got a few people who saw it and they all agreed
> on certain facts that would be even better. Even better would be a
> video of the event reviewed by experts who where not emotionally
> effected by seeing the crash live . If the tree crash was actually
> conducted as an experiment in lab with sensors connected everywhere
> you might get an even better understanding of exactly what happened in
> the crash.
>
> Now lets go back to the guy who got a huge rap on his noggin.
> Compared to those other observers of the event, he is the worst
> possible source for what happened in the crash.
>
> I am not saying personal experience isn't an important source for our
> knowledge, it is just important to know its limitations. People often
> confuse the compelling nature of their experience with legitimate
> criteria for truth or even accuracy. Sometimes people are
> passionately wrong. That is what the field of epistemology in
> philosophy studies. How we can be confident about our knowledge. It
> is not an absolute, perfect magical system. Just a set of guidelines
> to help us deceive ourselves less often. Humans are extremely
> vulnerable to deception, don't you think?
+++snip
Yes, quite right, I was thinking tho, that the individual having
the expierience was entitled to his view of it without someone finding
fault with it. N.
