This whole question is reminiscent of “suppose psychic powers really did exist, but depended on the beliefs of the psychic in such a way that skeptics just couldn’t reproduce them in a laboratory? Wouldn’t it look like the way psychics are now, and how could you ever discover this?”
When you ask this, you’re basically asking “what if it isn’t fake, but it looks just like a fake?”
If something looks just like a fake, the reasonable conclusion is that it’s a fake. In a hypothetical where real things look like fakes, this conclusion will of course be wrong. There’s no way to avoid this, because it’s always possible for some really improbable scenario to produce evidence that leads you to the wrong conclusion.
So in a hypothetical where lucid dreaming hasn’t been proven, and can’t be proven, you should conclude that it’s not worth spending time on lucid dreaming. It’s no different from concluding that you shouldn’t try out each proposed perpetual motion machine. This conclusion would be wrong, but the bizarre hypothetical in which lucid dreaming is real but looks just like a fake forces that conclusion.
in a hypothetical where lucid dreaming hasn’t been proven, and can’t be proven, you should conclude that it’s not worth spending time on lucid dreaming.
this seems false. The provability would just be one dimension of a cost-benefit analysis. If lucid dreaming were high value and low cost to test, but unproveable, you’d likely go ahead and test. Likewise with psychic tests in the real world. Grab a pack of cards and test with a friend. Takes ~1 minute.
Sorry to repeat myself but I am just pointing to a space of truth. Your example is your reason that you are biased towards the exploration of the space. I understand that and think it is logical of you to do so. I am just juxtaposing this with the example of lucid dreaming or meditation where there was something to find out and wonder what amount of that space we are missing because of our bias. That is all.
But you could always be missing something. Something can be true even though all the evidence looks bad. But something can also be true if there is no evidence (either good or bad). Something can be true even if the only evidence is fraudulent. Something can be true even if the only evidence for it is that you asked your 6 year old child for an example of science and he told you it.
Why don’t you wonder about any of them being true, instead of just wondering about the case where wishful thinking comes into play?
Why don’t you wonder about any of them being true, instead of just wondering about the case where wishful thinking comes into play?
Could you point me to where I only wondered about “the case where wishful thinking comes into play”?
I am getting the sense that you are arguing against propositions I haven’t put forward. Could you phrase my argument in your own words so we can clarify?
This whole question is reminiscent of “suppose psychic powers really did exist, but depended on the beliefs of the psychic in such a way that skeptics just couldn’t reproduce them in a laboratory? Wouldn’t it look like the way psychics are now, and how could you ever discover this?”
When you ask this, you’re basically asking “what if it isn’t fake, but it looks just like a fake?”
If something looks just like a fake, the reasonable conclusion is that it’s a fake. In a hypothetical where real things look like fakes, this conclusion will of course be wrong. There’s no way to avoid this, because it’s always possible for some really improbable scenario to produce evidence that leads you to the wrong conclusion.
So in a hypothetical where lucid dreaming hasn’t been proven, and can’t be proven, you should conclude that it’s not worth spending time on lucid dreaming. It’s no different from concluding that you shouldn’t try out each proposed perpetual motion machine. This conclusion would be wrong, but the bizarre hypothetical in which lucid dreaming is real but looks just like a fake forces that conclusion.
this seems false. The provability would just be one dimension of a cost-benefit analysis. If lucid dreaming were high value and low cost to test, but unproveable, you’d likely go ahead and test. Likewise with psychic tests in the real world. Grab a pack of cards and test with a friend. Takes ~1 minute.
Sorry to repeat myself but I am just pointing to a space of truth. Your example is your reason that you are biased towards the exploration of the space. I understand that and think it is logical of you to do so. I am just juxtaposing this with the example of lucid dreaming or meditation where there was something to find out and wonder what amount of that space we are missing because of our bias. That is all.
But you could always be missing something. Something can be true even though all the evidence looks bad. But something can also be true if there is no evidence (either good or bad). Something can be true even if the only evidence is fraudulent. Something can be true even if the only evidence for it is that you asked your 6 year old child for an example of science and he told you it.
Why don’t you wonder about any of them being true, instead of just wondering about the case where wishful thinking comes into play?
Could you point me to where I only wondered about “the case where wishful thinking comes into play”?
I am getting the sense that you are arguing against propositions I haven’t put forward. Could you phrase my argument in your own words so we can clarify?