Is first person experience reliable for knowing?

[Mixcoatl]

Ok, I'm a defender of direct experience as one of the best methods of knowing particular things. For instance, as Descartes said, I know I exist because there is something that is experiencing and I can't have a doubt for that, therefore, I can trust on my first experience in that particular thing. However, for other types of knowledge, I can't rely on my direct experience. For example: my direct experience tells me that the earth is somehow flat, but I can't be sure about this thing (actually I'm not a flat-earther, so my knowledge relies on trusting what others told me about the earth, which is another source of knowledge that I can't be sure about!!). The question is: why direct experience can be fully trusted for certain things and not for other things?

Edited Tuesday at 09:19 PM by Mixcoatl

[LordFall]

On top of having an epistemic process for validating your first person experience then I think it's solid. You know the earth is round because you have scientists that have calculated it and proved it by putting satellites into outer space and taking pictures of it. You can then have a certain burden of proof for the science involved but mainstream science proves that pretty handily.