Welcome to another edition of Woo Enthymemes.
This entry is often at the core of just about any anti-science viewpoint. It's true that our perception of the universe is based on experience, whether it was personal or by someone else who documented it. One big thing that separates a skeptic from a woo is that the skeptic knows his senses and memory are not all that reliable. Skeptics know that we're subject to confirmation bias, selection effects, apophenia, and so forth. We are mere mortals.
Some woos might have an awareness of their flawed nature, but they seldom put serious effort or thought into counteracting those flaws. Skeptics, on the other hand, practice the scientific method: Control for alternate explanations. Record both successes and failures. Look for others who have or will replicate the event or experiment. Double check everything. It's still not perfect, but with all these sorts of checks working together, the odds of being wrong diminish.
The closest I can recall woos ever coming to this is the appeal to popularity, which is only the countermeasure of multiple people doing the same thing. Those others, however, seldom do anything to rule out alternative causes for the results or check against all our various cognitive biases. In short, without going through all the hoops of the scientific method, you're being sloppy and opening yourself up to simply confirm your biases.
That's why I want to hear about experimental protocols and statistical analysis of the results instead of just another ghost anecdote.