The advocate as witness problem

I wanted to explain bit about what I recognize as the advocate-as-witness-problem and why I think discussions should try to avoid it.

First, no one doubts the sincereity of your experience, or that you believe it, etcetera. The problem is that to trot it out is a discussion-killer. it ends any particular truth-seeking.

Basically, when you decide to be a witness, to become part of the evidence, you disqualify yourself as an advocate. Attorneys, for example, have an ethical obligation to avoid such situations because it weakens their effectiveness in court [they are seen as having an axe to grind which weakens both their witness testimony and confidence in them as a reasonable advocate].

In debate, arguing from personal experience is considered a faux paux, an unforced error, and an admission the premise you advocate must have little supporting evidence [because otherwise you would have presented it].

It can be considered an off-base argument because it unilaterally and without consent of other participants [changes the topic from the premise being discussed [from, for example: can people receive truth through inner realization without input from this world, to, for example, is Don right that he can receive truth through inner realization without input from this world]. This is sometimes called hi-jacking.

It is also considered somewhat rude because it acts to require anyone who disagees with your premise to be so rude as to disagree with you personally rather than the ideas or evidence you advocate; it is sort of a look-away-in-embaressment-for-you error.

So, in addition to figuring out how to find the truth, I propose we figure out what not to do in seeking truth. My first nomination: avoid being an advocate-as-witness.