Fair enough, I appologise for being snarky.
Apology accepted!
But my responses are serious as well. When I say to you that I've reached a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, I expect you to know what I mean by that, and not continue to insist that I'm avoiding your request to answer "how reliable we should consider the evidence."
With respect, all that tells me is that you are convinced to a high degree. I think we can probably agree that people come to strongly believe in various propositions for all sorts of reasons - some skeptically obtained, others not-skeptically obtained.
It doesn't say whether that belief is justified according to valid, reliable evidence. It doesn't state how you determine just how valid and reliable the evidence (in this case your personal experience) is.
Skepticism is a methodology. It is an approach to evaluating claims and evidence.
I call myself a skeptic because I want my beliefs to be based on valid, reliable evidence.
Are you arguing that one can analyse these kinds of experiences in valid, reliable ways? If so, then let's discuss how you come to that conclusion. How do you determine that any doubt is unreasonable? And why do you consider it a sound analysis?
I'm asking seriously. If its just gut instinct and intuition, as fls noted above, we have pretty good scientific reason to question the reliability of our intuitions - especially when it comes to pattern recognition, which plays a big part in the analysis of many of these personal experiences.
And I was using Kennedy as an example of someone who has done exactly that. Even with four decades of scientific research that it was the personal experiences that led to this conslusion should tell us something about the nature of what we're dealing with.
On a practical level though Kennedy and I are at roughly the same place. He believes in psi overall because of an experience he had that had a great impact on him but which he recognises is unreliable, and so seeks valid, reliable evidence and looks to parapsychology to get it.
I'm at the same place, just from the opposite side. I don't believe in psi overall but recognise that there is unreliable evidence that supports it and am looking for valid reliable evidence. and in particular to parapsychology, to find it.
Kennedy draws on his personal experience as motive to explore these issues. I've drawn on the personal experience of others (and to a lesser extent my own) to get to the same place. Our goals are the same. (Not entirely coincidental as Kennedy's papers helped me form my current views).