[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Ham Priday]

Case --

> I would be interested in hearing your objections to Popper.

My point about Popper was not so much an objection as to cite an example of
a philosopher passing judgment on Science.  As far as I know, Popper's PhD
was in Philosophy, and althought he apparently was an avid reader, his only
scientific study was a course in the philosophy of science.  His reply to
Hume's Problem of Induction -- that just because the sun has risen every day
for as long as anyone can remember doesn't mean that there is reason to
believe it will come up tomorrow -- was that we can theorize that it will.
In other words, if the sun fails to rise tomorrow, the theory is proved
wrong.  In fact, there is no rational way to prove that a pattern will be
repeated because it has before.  Peter Singer and other scientists have
criticised Popper's falsification principle on the ground that it demeans
the role induction plays in scientific discovery.

> Good philosophy picks up where science leaves off
> and attempts to explain the "why" of the "what" science
> has revealed.  Philosophy aimed solely at seeking
> "ultimate reality" unaided by science it just knocking
> about in the dark.

I think it's a mistake to assume that Philosophy and Science work in tandem
to increase man's knowledge.  Often they are at odds on the "whys", as you
yourself have pointed out.  To be "aided by science" would require that the
philosopher accept the causal explanations proferred by Science, which is
not always true.
Again, I believe each discipline should pursue its respective interests by
its own methods, unhampered by the other.

Essentially yours,
Ham