I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position. I wasn't quite sure (which is why I said 'seems
to be') but it did seem like a reasonable one-word description of where you were coming from.
Anyway, your prime objection was, "against using subjective experience as evidence," and that was the problem which was stated in a slightly different form in the chunk of text I quoted to you.
If we take the view that subjective experience can never be satisfactory evidence, we can say nothing about the world we experience. But subjective experience is all we've got - all
information about the world and about our minds is subjective experience - so that position obviously doesn't work, and we hardly ever act as though it does.
Science, however, insists that that position is not only valid but necessary. It rejects subjective experience in favour of something it believes is objective evidence, although that 'objective' evidence still comes to each person through the same sense doors.
Does [subjective x 10] = [objective]?
Although it doesn't say so, that's the way science like to work. And one cost is that the subjective experience of any one person is unexaminable by science.
It is a real problem and one I don't have a good solution to. Like you, I am reluctant to accept the objective reality of something that has been subjectively experienced by only one person. In practice:
• I accept science when it says something which is within its realm of competence but place less faith in it when it talks about things it doesn't know or can't examine.
• I usually accept subjective experience as evidence when it agrees with others ... which is what science does.
• I have a large mental bin labelled "unproven" and throw a lot of stuff into it. Within it, like sticks to like; and if enough bits stick together I haul them out and put them in the "may be true" bin.
It's the best I can do.