Thanks for the info, Physicist. I understand how it applies to particle behavior. But I don't think we're speaking of the same thing. If were to push your logic, I would have to ask: Are you saying that science could simply dispense with scientists? I had thought the reason that scientists bother to design experiments is to be able to observe their results.
I'm not sure how you go from "atoms can collapse wave functions" to "science doesn't need scientists". Scientists aren't there to play a metaphysical role, but a practical one: humans want to develop predictive mathematical models of natural processes, the better to exploit them (technology, in other words). Our job isn't merely to collapse wavefunctions: mathematical models and technological widgets are "knowledge" things.
In principle, experiments aren't necessary for knowledge: whatever can happen is compulsory, so if you wait long enough, you will eventually observe every "special case". In practice, humans are an impatient lot, so we set up those special cases to see what will happen. We start out by watching apples fall, but then take to dropping things because we won't wait until next harvest time. We watch cosmic rays leave traces in nuclear emulsions, but build particle accelerators when we realize how very long it would take to catch a Higgs particle that way.