Thread: Lucid dreamers are using unproven tech to hack their sleep

I thought some of you might enjoy the latest article on lucid dream tech in Wired magazine.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lucid-dreaming-tech

I think it's important that we all do our part to fight the growing misinformation on this topic, If you'd like to join me in doing so, come and get involved here.

Having formal philosophical training, some of which in the area of Logic, I think it's important to remember that looking to notable individuals for wisdom and knowledge has value, but should always be seen with a grain of salt.

Attributing validity/soundness to a concept simply because of who said it is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appealing to authority". In reality, 2+2=4 is just as true coming from a student as it is coming from Einstein -- and so a concept either has merit (or doesn't) of it's own accord, and isn't more or less true depending on who is stating that concept. This is particularly true when it comes to ideas that are large and on the fringe of human understanding.

That said, whether Einstein was or was not an atheist seems irrelevant unless there is something more than a reputation giving it considerably. You'll see this tactic used all over social media -- a statement made using the person quoted as an implied justification of its truthfulness.

For anyone thinking these guys have also gone off topic, keep in mind Daniel opened up the question of whether Psudoscience is worth considering. If anyone wants to discuss the OP that is good, but this stuff seems like an reasonable extension of the thread creators comments.

Well, "worth" is a value statement relative to something else, and can change depending the context of its application.

If that context is strictly scientific or empirical in nature, as seems to be representative of Daniel's stance, then the worth of pseudoscience might not be that much -- perhaps only as much as it can lead to empirical study and discovery.

That said, if the context is spiritual or supernatural in nature, as seems to be representative of Eonnn's stance, the value (or "worth") changes, as it's now relative to something else.

This disagreement seems to be, at least in part, due to two people assuming different contexts, but approaching the discussion as if there is only one context to consider. Happens all the time, but the discussion won't go anywhere so long as the individuals don't calibrate on what the framework of the discussion should be.