When you are speaking of your life's experiences, you are not speaking from rigirous scientific analysis. That doesn't make your deductions any less true, but it's anecdotal. What you have seen and experience may or may be true over a wider statistical sample, and in fact, may not be true at all. Your perception, for example, could be wrong.
I could not agree more. Nobody is claiming that scientific investigation and anecdotal evidence are the same thing.
However whilst scientific investigation is a formulated method of studying empirical evidence to obtain maximum objectivity and reliability it is also quite possible to have empirical evidence that is not part of a scientific study of any sort.
Physical evidence that exists in an objective reality external to the experiencer. Physical evidence that can be independently corroborated by other conscious beings inhabiting the same objective reality as yourself.
When I see something mundane and everyday I quite justifiably assume it to be really there and not a figment of my imagination. I have a lifetime of empirical experience of witnessing things that are also being witnessed by others around me. I have no reason to think I am imagining the evryday and ordinary.
If I were in the habit of seeing things that nobody else could see or hear I might not be quite so presuming with regard to this matter.
Similarly if I witnessed something extraordinary I would very possibly
not believe my eyes unless there were fellow witnesses equally as stunned and able to corroborate what I had seen.
According to you it seems that there is scientifically verified evidence and then all other forms of evidence which are all equally valid. Empirical and non-empirical.
This is foolish. I don't need to scientifically study each individual I meet to know that they are real.
I have a lifetime of empirical physical experience on which to base the conclusion that they are real.
However extraordinary claims such as UFO experiences, bodies rising from the dead, interracting with angels etc. etc. etc. are by their very nature not mundane, not ordinary and not able to be assumed as reliable as there is not a wealth of previous empirical evidence on which to base such a conclusion. In such cases more thorough analysis is needed to render the conclusion reliable.
In short nobody is suggesting that day to day empirical experience is a substitute for scientifically rigorous investigation.
However nor is it possible (or even desirable) to subject every day to day claim to thorough scientific analysis. In the case of the mundane we can still make highly reliable conclusions based on past empirical experience.
Extraordinary claims however obviously require more analysis in order to be rendered reliable.
It is not a difficult concept. If you stop confusing empirical evidence with scientific investigation then I am sure you will get it eventually.