[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
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) ...

[Case]
A much clearer statement of the objections, thanks. So although not British
I remain Popperian in this respect. Beyond that though it is true that
science is not all this or all that. It is difficult to find a singular
statement for what it is. Many "sciences" are in fact not experimental at
all or at least not primarily so. Anthropology and astronomy come to mind in
this respect. Still I can think of no science that does not retain contact
with a subject matter about which independent observers can find agreement.

[Ham]
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]
Psychology abandoned this intentionally as the results were so meaningless.
You might have mentioned mathematics which often intentionally distains any
practical application of it results. It is often by shear accident that any
connection is made between something as weird as curved space.

[Ham]
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.  

[Case]
I agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact I would argue that this is one of
the chief functions of religion. As a quick comparative example, look at the
Buddhist notion that to eliminate suffering you must eliminate desire and
the Christian notion of surrender to the will of God. Both serve the
function of allowing the believer to avoid becoming the victim of cosmic
uncertainty. The former approach succeeds by removing want or expectations
the second by placing control in outside hands. The net result in both cases
is the same the believer or practitioners in not powerless in facing
whatever may come.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
So, having failed to convince you of the value of falsification, how about
parsimony? 

[Ham]
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?

[Case]
No, but you have convinced me to at least try to be more civil. My track
record in this regard is not good though...