A person once scolded me something like: “how dare you use data and arguments to challenge the lived experience of minorities.”

Isn’t that the point of all science and philosophy? To transcend our limited and biased experiences with data and arguments?

From what I can tell, “lived experience” is a morally elevated way to say “you must believe what I’m saying even though I don’t have data or theory because I want you to.”

It’s exactly the opposite of how we usually try to argue.

I don’t think lived experience is completely irrelevant. A person with a disability might understand something about the world that I don’t. But, in an argument, it’s no better than an anecdote. It’s evidentiary value is virtually zero.