[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
I think it remains for you to show why falsification impugns induction. Or
for that matter who are these scientists it displeases? As I pointed out
earlier intuition without a reality check in just fantasy. Who seriously
advocates the position you are espousing here? What alternative would you
propose to replace sciences as a fact checker?

[Ham]
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?)

[Case]
Science like all forms of rational discourse is limited to what can be
communicated. Objectivity is merely a matter of shared experience. It is
what multiple observers can agree upon. 

The fact that individuals construct reality internally can be and certainly
is being studied scientifically, medicially, psychologically, sociologically
and any number of ...ogically ways. Ignoring the results of such research
may contribute to the satisfaction derived from philosophical fantasies but
doesn't add up to much.

[Ham]
Hmmn -- Science creates Wisdom?  

[Case]
What I said is that science and philosophy or science and art, literature...
create understanding by providing a range on contexts to interpret its
findings and give them meaning.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
How does pacification of the soul differ from a simple warm fuzzy? Everyone
is free to construct whatever internal world they wish but if one expects to
have others partake in it, it must of necessity touch down in the world of
shared experience. If I expect you to take what I say seriously then it is
incumbent on me to formulate my subjective experience in a way that can
conceivably match yours. If all you want is pacification and a warm fuzzy
how about "Chicken Soup for the Soul"?