Experience as Evidence: Questioning Forum Closure - Physics Forums

[name123]

I asked on general discussion whether experience is evidence and the thread was pretty much immediately closed. And again no reason was given. Can I ask why it was closed? What scientific evidence doesn't require experience?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/experience-as-evidence.954301/

Edit: There needs to be an adjustment to the first bit, as there seems to be a response to the post which came after it seemed to be shut down, which seems to suggest that we don't know whether we are philosophical zombies. Was this apparently altruistic forum set up with an agenda? If not could the mentors explain why the mention of the obvious facts that we experience and experience change seem to be verbotten on this forum? Which mentors claim to be "philosophical zombies", or not know what the term means?

 

[russ_watters]

It appears to me that several reasons were given. Which didn't you understand?

 

[bhobba]

This is more philosophy than science. The scientific method is brilliantly explained by Feynman:


Discussing the terms used in that explanation such as experience etc and what it means is more philosophy than physics. Physicists generally take a pretty everyday simplistic view of such things and leave it to philosophers to ague it's exact meaning. Some terms like experience, reality etc are very hard to pin down exactly hence are more philosophical than is discussed here which by forum rules does not discuss philosophy. Just as background we used to have a sub-forum to discuss such stuff when, so I have been told (I was not a mentor then - just a humble poster) we had a mentor that knew about the philosophy of science, but that person is no longer with us and the forum degenerated into often either gibberish or wild personal speculation (that I can personally attest to - I would venture over there occasionally) so was closed, and we do not now discuss philosophical issues.

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

I asked on general discussion whether experience is evidence and the thread was pretty much immediately closed. And again no reason was given. Can I ask why it was closed? What scientific evidence doesn't require experience?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/experience-as-evidence.954301/

Edit: There needs to be an adjustment to the first bit, as there seems to be a response to the post which came after it seemed to be shut down, which seems to suggest that we don't know whether we are philosophical zombies. Was this apparently altruistic forum set up with an agenda? If not could the mentors explain why the mention of the obvious facts that we experience and experience change seem to be verbotten on this forum? Which mentors claim to be "philosophical zombies", or not know what the term means?

I took a look at that first post there. I am not a forum mentor.
That post is confusing and not clear. Maybe you confuse data with conclusions.

 

[Rive]

whether experience is evidence

Just think about LSD. Might give a lot of experience about some very interesting cosmology, but all that would count as an evidence only for the cops, right?

Subjective experiences just does not counts as evidence for science. Any 'scientific' discussion based on them is fated to reach no scientific conclusion, and to prevent such topics to mess up the forum (the forum intends to keep science clean and neat) they are not permitted.

 

[CWatters]

Was this apparently altruistic forum set up with an agenda?

Yes. See the forum rules.

 

[Nik_2213]

Your experience is context-sensitive. Unless you have the right mind-model, you're stuck with epicycles or, worse, superstition.
Don't forget that correlation does not prove causation...
;-(

 

[fresh_42]

If not could the mentors explain why the mention of the obvious ...

Non factual.

... facts that we experience ...

Undefined. At best a biological process which at prior isn't related to the rest of the question.

... and experience change seem to be verbotten ...

• forbidden is written with a double "d", verboten with only one "t"
• I do not like the hidden allegation here. This is ridiculous and very close to an insult, and as usual: without basis.
• Sloppiness is verboten, even in philosophy, which itself is shortened for good reasons.
• The question was far from being scientific in any possible view, be it meta-physics or philosophy. It was unprepared, not based on peer reviewed content, and the suspicion is on the table, that you do not look for answers, in which case you would be far better prepared, but just babble about anything.

...on this forum?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/general-discussion-rules.716057/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/changes-to-politics-discussion-policy.906516/

If you were really interested in the term "reality", I'm pretty sure there is no lack of literature. On PF it is simply what we can measure. Experience is a subjective biological process of the experimenter, and evidence what the scale of the measurement device shows. In this (our) sense the answer to ...

... what you experience is no evidence of reality?

= as long as our experimenter isn't intoxicated, or overly tired, or the measurement device broken, he experiences the reading of the scale and takes it as reality

... has to be NO.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is done.