My shot at the popular "meaning of life" topic It is not a matter of faith. As I have explained, fair evaluation is a presupposition in our use of the word "knowledge". When we call something "knowledge", we are thereby insisting that it can pass a test of fair evaluation under ideal conditions.
I don't think experience as such is knowledge. Experience enters into knowledge when it is organized into proportional tables that can pass tests of fair evaluation:
1. Suppose you feel that X is the case. This by itself does not constitute knowledge that X is the case. I think we can all agree on this much. If that were not true, then everything I said would constitute knowledge because I felt that everything I said is true.
2. But suppose you feel pain. Does that constitute knowledge that you feel pain? I would argue that only to the extent that it is represented in the tables I mentioned above. Suppose a little kid says, "Ow, that hurt!" and an older kid tells him, "That's not real pain. Wait till you go through XYZ." I think there is an element of truth to that answer when interpreted literally, and here's why:
The little kid's experience counts as knowledge insofar as it is represented in a table of his past experiences. The older kid's answer says that once more experience has been accumulated, the past experience will be dwarfed to such an extent that it will no longer pass a fair test asking the question, "Is this experience really pain?" In this way, both sentences carry a degree of contextual accuracy.
As for the argument I gave, it makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out specific objections, since the "doesn't make sense" line can be applied to literally any argument. For example: "Calling experience knowledge doesn't make sense" is not a proper counterargument to your claim, etc.