if _there_ is a large sample consisting of people whose subjective experiences all have common descriptions
then that is useful grist for the hypothesis forming mill, but not what any scientist would call data
if you then make sure the sample is statistically valid and uses relevant methodology (such as double blind testing) THEN you have real data (and would next want to find the mechanistic reasons for the difference)
the former might be akin to what we'd call clinical experience
then that is useful grist for the hypothesis forming mill, but not what any scientist would call data
if you then make sure the sample is statistically valid and uses relevant methodology (such as double blind testing) THEN you have real data (and would next want to find the mechanistic reasons for the difference)
the former might be akin to what we'd call clinical experience