[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

SA,

I don't know that any of these discussions have actually focused on any
particular point. But here are some short answers to your questions.

1)  Does science teach people morals?

No. Simply put, science is about what "is". Morality is about "ought to be".
Science can be applied to the study of morality. For example, dmb claimed
that sex is not a mystical experience and I maintained that when a society
does not treat it as one, all sorts of negative consequences accrue. Science
provides the tools to identify population behaviors, quantify relevant
factors and plot changes across time. Correlations do not in themselves
establish causal relationships be they are highly suggestive. So one could
plot the approval of casual sex against divorces rates, epidemiological
information on STD etc... So, while science can not "teach" it can certainly
inform morality.

2)  Does science introspect its' (exploratory) methods, or in other words,
its' way of how it gathers data and what to do with this data?

Scientific methods like the subjects they are used to study are always being
tested as part of the activity of science. Methods are chosen and abandoned
based on reasoned judgments of their utility. In my conversation with dmb I
mentioned the introspective method in psychology. In James' time it was
considered a legitimate technique for psychologists to examine their own
thought processes or to teach subjects to report on their own thought
processes. The results were disappointing and the method has been abandoned.

3)  Is science just a labeler, in other words, does science 'do' anything or
just identify the 'things' that do?  Does science show a way to practice
life (or any paths in life), or does science just show how life is
practiced?  Is there a distinction?

Science is about the manipulation of variables to isolate causal
relationships. In this sense it is a rationalist program to identify how
things are in an ideal world, that is, a world restricted to the variables
under scrutiny. Labeling and classification is only one of the functions of
science but in almost none of its functions is there anything inherent in
science itself to say what it should do or what is valuable to do. These are
the functions of philosophy and religion. The Greek philosophers' task, for
example was largely to integrate and give meaning to the discoveries of the
Greek mathematicians. Above the door to Plato's academy were the words "Let
no one unfamiliar with Geometry enter here." The Platonic "forms" are rooted
in the Platonic "solids".

My point in most of these discussions has never been to claim that science
is the only way to see the world. I believe I have been very clear on this
point. However, I have maintained that proposing a metaphysics, or a
philosophy or a religion in opposition to science is quixotic at best.
Science can and should provide information to inform our ethical and moral
discussions. It is a scientific fact for example that a nuclear weapon can
kill 100s of thousands of people. But it would be foolish to regard this
fact as having no moral implications. 

Platt and several others seem to believe in a consciousness and purpose that
are not tied to processes occuring here and now in nature. They believe our
destiny is being determined by a divine plan or in harmony with some
ultimate cosmic principle or as the result of some Absolute Source or the
unified nature of all things. These various views are challenged by efforts
to test and measure and specify. The results of science in biology and
physiology do not square with these views and so folks vilify the likes of
Dawkins who intentionally sets himself up for such vilification. 

I think this is the source of resistance to the idea of emergence, for
example. Which is odd since the MoQ is specifically about whole levels of
relationships emerging from lower orders of relationships. There is
resistance to the inverse of emergence, which is reduction. The fruits of
the reductionist program have been stunning. In fairness several people here
are chiefly concerned about science and reductionism run amuck. They see the
tendency in popular culture to assume that since things can be taken apart
there is no compelling reason to put them back together in the same way. 

Since we can develop birth control techniques and mitigate the consequences
of casual sex then it is ok to have casual sex. Perhaps from a purely
mechanistic point of view this makes some sort of sense. But science
abandoned a mechanistic world view almost 100 years ago and has been
drifting toward an organic view since. In an organic view, pregnancy is just
one of many consequences of casual sex. Changing public standards on the
basis of one such consequence leads to lots of unintended consequences down
the road.

But I think the single biggest point I have been aiming at in many
conversations here is that the "ought" of morality originates in us. It does
not derive from divine authority or the interpretation of mystical
experience. Purpose arises from us, not from the external world. 

Without a lot of philosophical meandering let me state it plainly. Science
shows us this "fact." Life is ubiquitous on Earth. It thrives in deep sea
hot vents, polar ice sheets and everywhere in between. That it is all around
us, blinds us to the fact that it appears to be rare elsewhere. If you asked
me what our purpose is I would say it is to be stewards of life here and to
help it be fruitful and multiply elsewhere. Life is growth. It is the
ultimate manifestation of dynamic quality. Our purpose should be to foster
this. But looking for purpose outside of ourselves is just passing the buck
to some abstraction and shirking our ultimate responsibility.

I don't know if that even addresses what you asked but that's more or less
how I see it.

But I could be wrong.

Case