--- 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.