In the same vein, we can't really "confirm" that, for example, the JWST observations are not fake. It could be that someone has produced elaborate fake data and

In the same vein, we can't really "confirm" that, for example, the JWST observations are not fake. It could be that someone has produced elaborate fake data and galaxies. Taken to the extreme -- everything could be fake, even your own reality and your own memories. However, it is very, very reasonable to assume those things are not fake. Clearly one basic principle of science, reason, etc.. is to assume some kind of predictability or regularity unless we have reason to believe otherwise. I think it will turn out we should deal with qualia the same way: even though in a very strict sense it is not observable by other entities, we can use our own experiences to assume others have similar ones, and to build a scientific and philosophical understanding of it from the principles of generalization and from there accepting the insights and contributions of other scientists who are also sentient as far as we know. This is a new and necessary paradigm of science so that we can understand things we really need to understand profoundly. This is as true in cosmology as in the study of consciousness. [1] [1] I've called it the 'Peakaboo fallacy', see this comment on cosmology: https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/xdehtz/the_multiverse_science_religion_or_pseudoscience/iog1fez/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/xdehtz/the_multi...