why science minimizes first person experiences?

[Mixcoatl]

Correct me if I'm wrong but... Can't understand why scientific mind denies first person experiences and testimonials as evidence when science occurs inside first person experience!! Peer review is first person experience, seeing a cell through a microscope is first person experience.

Today I watched a video of Curt Jaimungal interviewing Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this guy says something like "I don't care about testimonials because it's the lowest source of evidence..." He says science develops instruments to minimize the subjectivity of the human senses to make science objective like building microscopes in one side and building telescopes in the other side, but it is funny for me because human senses are involved all the time. If not, who is watching through that telescope?

[Mixcoatl]

Telescopes are experience indeed 😂

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, Mixcoatl said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but... Can't understand why scientific mind denies first person experiences and testimonials as evidence when science occurs inside first person experience!! Peer review is first person experience, seeing a cell through a microscope is first person experience.

Today I watched a video of Curt Jaimungal interviewing Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this guy says something like "I don't care about testimonials because it's the lowest source of evidence..." He says science develops instruments to minimize the subjectivity of the human senses to make science objective like building microscopes in one side and building telescopes in the other side, but it is funny for me because human senses are involved all the time. If not, who is watching through that telescope?

One explanation is that science is survival, and has it's roots in evolution and survival of the tribe. So in those contexts, it was shown again and again that what one person said could be heavily wrong and biased, and what the group or a bunch of people said for the most part handled better survival chances and security, even if it wasn't necessarily true. Strength in numbers sort of thing, the social domain is full of it, and science is a part of that.

Though if you are on this forum you can probably guess that what the tribe or the collective says is not always true, so it's a nuanced point. All revolutions in science and thinking usually came from a single person who the majority considered crazy or deluded.

Can't really escape bias and firt-person experience so science is very stupid and arrogant to discard those whithout investigation and open-mindedness.

Science needs both epistemic rigor and open-mindedness -- fire and water

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Eskilon

[Mixcoatl]

46 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Though if you are on this forum you can probably guess that what the tribe or the collective says is not always true, so it's a nuanced point. All revolutions in science and thinking usually came from a single person who the majority considered crazy or deluded.

I was about to say the same. Some people (including myself, at times) feel a sense of comfort when they notice that others share and support the same ideas. I'm currently working on it. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Mixcoatl