[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Ham Priday]

> [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 aside 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.

Spoken like a true scientist!  Yes, and disproving a theory is a pretty
dramatic test.
But, you see, Popper was contesting the opposite situation: he maintained
that there is no rational way to prove any theory -- even one that predicts
that the earth is revolving around the sun.  It's a valid theory, only so
long as it continues to happen.  And this qualifier (the possibility of
falsification) impugns inductive logic, which is what displeases the
scientists.

Anyway, Science's approach to knowledge is limited to objective data that
relates to intellectually conceived principles.  That's two reasons why
Science will never prove the reality of existence.  Why do I say this?
Because reality is ultimately more than objects and their observed
properties.  It has a subjective composite that is beyond the scope of
scientific investigation.  Indeed, it's the subjective half of the dichotomy
that "constructs" the very model of the universe that scientists explore in
such great detail.  (Remember my "mirror" analogy?)

Look, I'm not knocking Science.  I majored in Biology and Chemistry and took
electronics training in the service.  I depend on the car to start when I
activate the ignition switch.  I expect water to spout from my kitchen
faucet when I turn the handle.  I applaud the genetic researchers who will
one day come up with cures for Parkinson's and Diabetes.  I even believe
taking a Thyroxin pill and an Omega-3 tablet daily improves my own health.
For all practical purposes I need Science & Technology to live in the modern
world.  But these amenities are not the province of Philosophy.

> 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.

Hmmn -- Science creates Wisdom?  A fantastical idea that I don't buy.  No
matter how much scientific knowledge we accumulate, it won't make us wiser.
More efficient, more productive, more intelligent, perhaps; but not wiser.
Wisdom comes from understanding the meaning of the life-experience, not just
the properties and relationships of things.  We should expect to be wiser
for having had a lifetime of experience, but without philosophical insight
to interpret this experience, it is lost on us.  J. Van der Leeuw said: 'The
real mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, it is a reality to be
experienced."  But I think I like Sandra Carey's quote better: "Never
mistake knowledge for wisdom.  One helps you make a living; the other helps
you make a life."

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

The point is to satisfy the quest for understanding.  What we cannot know by
observation we must hypothesisize to pacify the soul.  I'm not talking about
"random speculation" but a thoughtful cosmogeny that can plausibly account
for the experiential universe and man's role in it.  I submit that we all
hold to a particular belief system, whether we choose to express it or not.
Whatever it is, it represents Truth for us.  And, in a world that is largely
our intellectual creation, it may well be more significant than any paradigm
theorized from scientific knowledge.

Essentially yours,
Ham