Museum Curator Dr. Kirk Johnson: I Might Not Exist!

[Vaquero45]

If you sent a five year old to kindergarden and he was told by his teacher that she wasn't sure she existed, would you have much faith in her ability to teach? She probably isn't sure that numbers, crayons, Big Chief pads, and nap time exist either. Is she sure your child exists? I don't know about you, but I have no concern for the welfare or education of the easter bunny.

A person who is confused by the question, "do you exist" is (at least pretending to be) an idiot. Some say it is a philosophical trap. If it is, then the person needs to be trapped and introduced to Mr. Logic, and his friend Intellectual Honesty, which will hopefully lead our person to believe in and value truth, and drop the relativism that allows this person to present guesses as if they are fact.

 

[Vaquero45]

OK - I repeated the above because I just finished listening to the radio show linked in the OP and I must say I am disappointed. I had expected to hear an interview between Bob and Dr. Johnson, instead, I heard Bob's version of the exchange, the veracity of which I now wonder about, based on the exchange above.



How about it Bob? Care to get Dr. Johnson on your show and get his remarks on tape?

I was standing right next to Dr. Johnson when this conversation took place, and I remember it the same way Bob presented it. I forgot to turn on my tape recorder though. :doh: Koban, even if this whole scenario was made up, it wouldn't change the points being made. (just remove the proper names, if you suspect everyone is lying about the actual event)

 

[GuySmiley]

If it is, then the person needs to be trapped and introduced to Mr. Logic, and his friend Intellectual Honesty, which will hopefully lead our person to believe in and value truth, and drop the relativism that allows this person to present guesses as if they are fact.

Bravo!!! This is the point. :first:

 

[2ephesians8]

:think:


So, does this mean I might be figment of some one else's imagination?

Does that also then mean that you all are also figments of that being's imagination?

Or are you all figments of my imagination?

No, wait. If I don't exist, I can't imagine anything...but then that would mean you don't exist either...so..none of us exists???? :rain: :help: :Cyrus: :freak: :aikido:

 

[aharvey]

I was standing right next to Dr. Johnson when this conversation took place, and I remember it the same way Bob presented it. I forgot to turn on my tape recorder though. :doh: Koban, even if this whole scenario was made up, it wouldn't change the points being made. (just remove the proper names, if you suspect everyone is lying about the actual event)

Yes, I agree that it doesn't matter whether the incident to which Bob refers (and of which, coincidentally, no record exists!) actually occurred as per your spin, or even at all. How any person answers any question by Bob Enyart, but most especially inane ones, has no bearing on that person's credibility as a scientist.

Furthermore, with respect to this particular inane question ("Do you exist?"): if a person regularly ponders this question, and is genuinely confused about whether he exists, but not as part of any particular philosophical exercise, then I would say we would have little reason to question their credibility as a scientist because they lack the basic critical thinking skills needed to break into the scientific profession in the first place.

 

[koban]

I was standing right next to Dr. Johnson when this conversation took place, and I remember it the same way Bob presented it. I forgot to turn on my tape recorder though. :doh: Koban, even if this whole scenario was made up, it wouldn't change the points being made. (just remove the proper names, if you suspect everyone is lying about the actual event)

Again, it would be nice to hear both sides of the story and the actual conversation. Just as Bob delights in a wrong conclusion,

So here we are, 27 posts into this most inane topic, and neither Jukia, Johnny, Phy, aharvey or coban can find anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists! Ha!

I would like to have heard for myself the nuances of Dr. Johnson's response to Bob, and the actual question given. Without having anything other than Bob's version (and now your corroboration of that version) to go on, I suspect that Dr. Johnson wasn't really giving the question as much thought as he would have if he had been asked it in say, a moderated debate whose topic was "Existential Philosophy".

He's local, right?

Get him on the show!





Regarding the points being made Vaquero, what's your take on the following?








Do you agree with the following statement?

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing?

What would you divine of the author's scientific capabilities?

 

[Vaquero45]

Again, it would be nice to hear both sides of the story and the actual conversation. Just as Bob delights in a wrong conclusion,

Bob Enyart- So here we are, 27 posts into this most inane topic, and neither Jukia, Johnny, Phy, aharvey or coban can find anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists! Ha!

I would like to have heard for myself the nuances of Dr. Johnson's response to Bob, and the actual question given. Without having anything other than Bob's version (and now your corroboration of that version) to go on, I suspect that Dr. Johnson wasn't really giving the question as much thought as he would have if he had been asked it in say, a moderated debate whose topic was "Existential Philosophy".

He's local, right?

Get him on the show!

It would be very interesting to have Dr. Johnson on the show. I would love to hear that. Maybe he has given the conversation more thought and could come up with a better answer now. At the time he was dodging the accusation that the displays he uses in the exhibit are misleading. I'm not sure how he can defend against that, but hopefully he could do a better job than basically suggesting that truth is relative, which in my opinion is what he did at the museum.

Regarding the points being made Vaquero, what's your take on the following?


Do you agree with the following statement?

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing?

As for the quote above, I don't expect scientists to write books on "does god exist?", or "is there life after death?" or "what is happiness?". Generally, I agree with the quote.

What would you divine of the author's scientific capabilities?

I can't know enough about the author from the statement to make a judgement of his reasoning skills, which is what I question when someone wonders if they exist. I think the author's meaning is that many philosophical topics are not related to science, and if so, I agree.

 

[koban]

It would be very interesting to have Dr. Johnson on the show. I would love to hear that. Maybe he has given the conversation more thought and could come up with a better answer now. At the time he was dodging the accusation that the displays he uses in the exhibit are misleading. I'm not sure how he can defend against that, but hopefully he could do a better job than basically suggesting that truth is relative, which in my opinion is what he did at the museum.









As for the quote above, I don't expect scientists to write books on "does god exist?", or "is there life after death?" or "what is happiness?". Generally, I agree with the quote.



I can't know enough about the author from the statement to make a judgement of his reasoning skills, which is what I question when someone wonders if they exist. I think the author's meaning is that many philosophical topics are not related to science, and if so, I agree.

Thanks for not cheating! :thumb:

Go ahead and Google it now.

 

[fool]

Einstein

 

[koban]

:nananana:

 

[Jukia]

Although it would also be interesting to know if teeth really did evolve from scales. Now all of us who listened to the show are aware of Pastor Enyart's incredulity at this possibility but some of us would really like to know the science rather than Pastor Enyart's theological take on it.
And putting the curator on the show would be a waste of time. Pastor Enyart is nothing if not very good at pointing his show in the direction he wants and mocking all those who may disagree with him. In the area of science he remains a bit on the uneducated side but panders to his loyal listeners. Not sure whether he learned that from Limbaugh or Limbaugh from him!

 

[GuySmiley]

:nananana:

I'm assuming by your smilie that you think you made a great point. But I have to ask what it is? So what, Einstein said that. Are trying to say that Einstein also doubted his own existence so that really has no bearing on if someone is a good scientist?

The point is that Dr Johnson showed a lack of either logic or integrity in the way his display at the museum presented. His refusal to admit he exists also demonstrates this.

 

[fool]

I just listened to the show and there is a great example of Bob's ignorance right there.
Bob states that he knows the sun rose yesterday. Here we see him absolutly sure of something that isn't true.

 

[GuySmiley]

I just listened to the show and there is a great example of Bob's ignorance right there.
Bob states that he knows the sun rose yesterday. Here we see him absolutly sure of something that isn't true.

Not true! The sun is moving, right? It all depends on your frame of reference, and I happen to know that by Bob's reference frame, the sun definitely went in the direction refered to as 'up'.

 

[fool]

Not true! The sun is moving, right? It all depends on your frame of reference, and I happen to know that by Bob's reference frame, the sun definitely went in the direction refered to as 'up'.

The sun does move thru the galaxy, but this is not what resulted in the sun rise Phenomenon.
The Earth rotates on it's axis, so what happened to Bob was the Earth rotated until the sun could be seen from his location.
Quite a bit different than "the sun rose" that Bob is absolutly sure about.

 

[GuySmiley]

The sun does move thru the galaxy, but this is not what resulted in the sun rise Phenomenon.
The Earth rotates on it's axis, so what happened to Bob was the Earth rotated until the sun could be seen from his location.
Quite a bit different than "the sun rose" that Bob is absolutly sure about.

fool, on some romantic walk on the beach with your favorite girl (I dont know if you are married) do you stop and say, wow honey, look, the Earth has rotated so that the sun can be seen from our location? Or do you refer to it as a sunrise? If you aren't married, that could be why, you just need to find a really geeky girl.

EDIT: You know in a Bob-centered, Bob-fixed reference frame, with say the Z axis coming out the top of Bob's head, then the sun truly did rise in every sense of the word (with some translation in the X_Y plane also) assuming that Bob is standing up while looking at the sun rise.

 

[Jukia]

fool: Even I have to suggest that you lighten up. A figure of speech is OK once in a while. Makes the language more interesting.

 

[Shalom]

I'm assuming by your smilie that you think you made a great point. But I have to ask what it is? So what, Einstein said that. Are trying to say that Einstein also doubted his own existence so that really has no bearing on if someone is a good scientist?

The point is that Dr Johnson showed a lack of either logic or integrity in the way his display at the museum presented. His refusal to admit he exists also demonstrates this.

I was also interested to hear what point Koban thought he was making with the :nananana: smilie????

 

[koban]

I'm assuming by your smilie that you think you made a great point.

No, I was razzing fool for butting in when I would have preferred a continuation of the dialogue with Vac.

But I have to ask what it is?

My point was that an unknown was quoted as basically punting regarding philosophical questions. I asked what could be divined about his scientific capabilities from that reluctance to engage in existential wool-gathering.

The obvious answer would be: nothing.

So what, Einstein said that. Are trying to say that Einstein also doubted his own existence so that really has no bearing on if someone is a good scientist?

Einstein avoided the question. I doubt that he doubted his own existence, just as I really wonder what Dr. Johnson's answer would have been in a different setting.

Pondering one's own metaphysical being is not generally offered in any science curriculum that I'm familiar with.

The point is that Dr Johnson showed a lack of either logic or integrity in the way his display at the museum presented.

It is? I thought the point was to ridicule him for not being prepared for an existential philosophy debate. That certainly took the bulk of Bob's time on the show.



He's local, right? Get him on the show, discuss the display's deficiencies, discuss his own reluctance to 'fess up to his own existence, call him a fool, poke him with sharp sticks, do whatever you want to do.

Get him on the show!

His refusal to admit he exists also demonstrates this.

Again, I would want to hear the exchange before I agreed.

Bob's version certainly does indicate a degree of confusion in Dr. Johnson's response.

Of course, Bob was also confused about which question he posed to Harv, Juke, Phy and me, so you can see why I might be reluctant to unconditionally accept his version.

 

[fool]

fool: Even I have to suggest that you lighten up. A figure of speech is OK once in a while. Makes the language more interesting.

Ah, but this "figure of speech" is a window into the root problem being discussed here.
Bob absolutly, uneqivocatedly, states that the sun rose. Sun-subject, rose-verb, which I demonstrated was untrue. I think that this may shed some light on why the Dr. was reluctant to absolutly state that he existed.
I'll state that I have a theory, with strong evidential support, that I, fool, am a human being alive on Earth and posting on the internet, but I do accept that this may not in fact be correct. I could be a clone, with fool's memory put here to replace the real fool who was destroyed along with Earth to make room for a hyper-space by-pass. (although the evidence for this is weak.)
I think what is important is that by making an absolute statement, like Bob did, he actually stated something that was true, from his reference point, useing common figures of speech, that when read from the point of veiw of someone that knew about the Earth rotating, made it look like Bob thought the Sun went around the Earth.
Having said that I will now say this.
From what I heard about the exhibit from the BEL show, and not haveing seen it myself, I will tenitavly concede that the exhibit may be presenting theorys as facts, which is bad science.