[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Ham Priday]

[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?

In addition to Thomas Kuhn, who argued that falsifiability cannot be a
criterion of Science because it excludes most of what scientists actually
do, Scientific American columnist Martin Gardner wrote in the Skeptical
Inquirer -- (essentially an on-line scientific journal) ...

"Popper's great and tireless efforts to expunge the word induction from
scientific and philosophical discourse has utterly failed.  Except for a
small but noisy group of British Popperians, induction is just too firmly
embedded in the way philosophers of science and even ordinary people talk
and think.

"Confirming instances underlie our beliefs that the Sun will rise tomorrow,
that dropped objects will fall, that water will freeze and boil, and a
million other events. It is hard to think of another philosophical battle so
decisively lost." -- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html

>From "Physicaplus" -- Online Magazine of the Israel Physical Convention:

"Irwin Shapiro's survey of experimental relativity was finished.  The moment
the
discussion period opened the stocky English cosmologist Dennis Sciama rose
up out of a chair near the front of the auditorium.  Waving his arms he
uttered the 'good news' in the apocalyptic tones befitting his subject. The
affinities of cosmology to grand opera derive in their common goals:

"1.  To reveal, beneath the raw data of experience, the eternal invariants
that govern the cosmos, or the eternal truths of love and fate.
 2.  To provide simple, gratifying answers to deep questions about our place
in the universe and the direction in which we are headed .

"Providentially for some, cosmology is a subject in which almost all
relevant
information is either inaccessible or unknowable.  Given this state of
affairs (similar to what one finds in homonid paleontology) its
practitioners tend to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of a few
scattered observations, with only a minor concern for confirmation through
prediction.  It's impossible to perform cosmological experiments since
there's not much that is predictable (The Microwave Background Radiation is
a notable exception).

"Thus, although there are 8 commonly accepted solutions of the Einstein
Field
Equations it is exceedingly difficult to imagine experiments that would
decide between them.  Cosmology is therefore divided between Observation and
Theory, with little activity in the domain of Prediction.  Karl Popper would
probably have concluded that Cosmology is "insufficiently falsifiable" to
quality as a science." -- 
http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/1124811264/lisker1_en

I also like this quote by an anonymous blogger:
"Failure of falsification can offer much stronger support than mere
confirming evidence. ...But falsification is impossible for theories
deriving from the supernatural.  Which means that any rigorous system for
explaining the world must be naturalistic. ... So Science, from humble
beginnings as simply a concerted attempt to get the right answer, turns out
to necessarily require both metaphysical naturalism as its foundation and
falsification as its primary tool in seeking truth.  And it is unique.
There is only one Science.  A system based on naturalism and using
falsification to test ideas is Science.  A system that fails if either of
these is not."  -- http://www.ambientirony.mu.nu/archives/rant/

[Case]:
> The fact that individuals construct reality internally can be
> and certainly is being studied scientifically, medically,
> 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.

Most, if not all, of these "...ologies" are objectivist sciences that look
at conscious subjectivity as a biological (neuro-physiological) phenomenon.
Sociologists, for example, construct bell curves based on statistical
studies.  Cyberneticists use the data processing paradigm to decribe
intellectual activity.  Medical research is largely based on analyses of
biochemical effects on the brain and synaptic response.  Etc., etc.
Psychology, as practiced in James' day, might have been an exception; but
the psychologists were seduced to the positivist approach by the middle of
the last century.  Philosophy -- specifically epistemology -- remains the
single '-ology' that deals with "reality construction" subjectively.

[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"?

I used "pacification of the soul" euphemistically, but I won't deny that a
sound belief system can have a palliative affect on the human psyche, much
as does beauty, religion, and the arts.  Metaphysics can connect with the
world of shared experience, if well articulated and compatible with
universal ideologies and concepts.  The "incumbency" you mention is a
two-way street.  An author is obliged to "reach out" to readers sufficiently
to make his thesis relevant to their needs and interests, while there must
also be an openness on the part of the reader to absorb new ideas and see
things from a different perspective.

No philosopher with integrity can promise a rose garden; but rational ideas
exchanged for intellectual curiosity can be mutually beneficial -- even
inspirational when properly executed.  A worthy cosmogeny isn't built on
platitudes and homilies, but it doesn't hurt to throw in a few analogies as
guideposts along the way.  If a thesis is viewed as "chicken soup for the
soul" or "pie in the sky," it's doubtful that the author will gain any
serious consideration for his efforts.

I know I haven't satisfied you, Case; but does any of this answer your
question?

Essentially yours,
Ham