[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
I was unaware of any doubt that Popper was a philosopher of science, so
passing judgment on science was part of his job description. The problem
with Hume was that of perpetual uncertainty. 

Popper said well maybe we can't eliminate the problem but a good theory
would at least tell us the odds. He says one way to test a theory is to
disprove it. If you disprove it you can set it side and move on. If you try
to disprove it and fail then you increase confidence in the theory. The more
times and more ways that you fail to prove the wrong the greater your
confidence becomes.

If on the other hand you can state no way to disprove the theory then you
have no way of testing it. It makes no predictions that can be assessed. It
is irrelevant as a scientific statement. 

I have never heard of a scientist who demeaned intuition. I have heard of
many who sang its praises. By forcing the individual to clarify their
intuition and put it to the test, science empowers intuition rather than
demeans it.

I don't know what scientists you are referring to but Singer is not among
them. He is an ethicist.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
I don't think Science and Philosophy do work in tandem to increase
knowledge. I think together they should produce Wisdom. Or perhaps it is
Wisdom that produces them. 

Science challenges philosophy to create Wisdom by giving meaning to the
relationships it reveals in nature. But science makes the same challenge to
art and literature and every other field of human endeavor. Frankly, it is
not science that is falling down on the job.

But beyond the constraints of science I honestly do not see the point in
random speculation that has no consequences.