Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

Here of course your interlocutor shows the kind of casual, question-begging scientism that I was talking about before. 

Sure Bel, it's "scientism" to notice that the the scientific method is a more effective way to study things, including experience..including buddhist meditation....than buddhist meditation.  I'm guessing that's not the only word you make meaningless so that you can launch some vry srs objection.

In mere reality, people report their experiences in scientific investigations of consciousness, and they get noted for what they are. Subjective reports requiring further exploration. Buddhist practitioners have, ofc, been the subject of exactly this sort of canvassing. As for the rest, I see that we're trying to shitcan logic entirely on account of our precious experiences and how it might create friction between what we claim and what we can rationally posit. There's the guarded thing, if there were any. That said..hey, could be true - for novel values of truth. Maybe we do live in a world where things can be themselves and not themselves. In which case, the axiom we refer to as non-contradiction would be objectively and evidentiarily false.... for then-novel values of false.

No one doubts that people can make confused, irrational, and competing claims...especially with their "heart"...but that's probably not an example of how the principle of non contradiction can be violated. No more so than a wall being permeable to items of one scale and impermeable to items of another is an example of the principle of non contradiction being violated. I think we'd need better evidence to sell that one.