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

[koban]

Jukia's Grade:

CuratorExistsQ1: Pass.
CuratorExistsQ2: Fail

Average: 50% = F

So far JJP can't bring themselves to answer CEQ2. And CEQ2a has even less wiggle room, so it'll be fun to watch them not answer that one either.

CuratorExistsQ2: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy: If my report is accurate (that curator of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Dr. Kirk Johnson, when asked repeatedly, could not affirm that he exists), does this undermine Dr. Johnson's credibility as a scientist?

CuratorExistsQ2a: If Doctor Kirk cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?

And in case Johnny, Jukia, and Phy are refusing to answer CEQ2 just because they can't get themselves to undermine the credibility of one particular evolutionist, then let's make the question generic, CEQ2b, and not refer to Doctor Kirk.

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

Come on guys! Just do it! Answer!

-Bob Enyart.

Hey! :sibbie:

Where's my grade?

 

[Jukia]

Pastor Enyart: For the record, I could not care less how you grade me.

 

[koban]

Pastor Enyart: For the record, I could not care less how you grade me.

If he uses a curve, you're all gonna get C's. :chuckle:




Of course, I just wrecked the curve! :banana:

 

[Jefferson]

Pastor Enyart: For the record, I could not care less how you grade me.

It's not just Bob grading you. Anyone anywhere in the world would give a failing grade for 50% correct answers.

 

[koban]

It's not just Bob grading you. Anyone anywhere in the world would give a failing grade for 50% correct answers.

Not so Jeff!

I've had engineering courses where 50% was a B. (graded on the curve, of course - and reflects more on the teacher's abilities than the student's)

 

[Jukia]

It's not just Bob grading you. Anyone anywhere in the world would give a failing grade for 50% correct answers.

Ah, but what are the correct answers? After listening to Pastor Enyart for a few years and reading what he has written regarding science, sorry there is a major disconnect between the good Pastor and science. So I am not too concerned with the grade he gave me.

 

[aharvey]

It's not just Bob grading you. Anyone anywhere in the world would give a failing grade for 50% correct answers.

We'll have to wait for Bob's answer key, but in fact 'providing no answer' is not the same as 'providing an incorrect answer' if in fact there is no correct answer. It is also entirely possible to write a version of a question for which there is arguably a correct answer, but not provide enough information in the version to allow the correct answer to be deduced.

For example, one might imagine a scientist poorly trained in philosophy doing a bad job answering a metaphysical question posed by a (insert your own relevant adjectives here) radio talk-show host without it necessarily undermining his credibility as a scientist. One might imagine any number of reasons why a scientist might fumble that particular question under those particular circumstances (indeed, the most imaginative explanation I've heard yet is "because he fears truth itself"!), most of which probably have little or nothing to do with his credibility as a scientist. The information at hand doesn't exactly allow for a clear answer to be given.

This is perhaps one reason why the credibility of scientists is not usually evaluated on the basis of their performance on hostile radio talk shows, although one might re-evaluate their common sense for willingly walking into such a venue!

On the other hand, a test answer is often graded "correct" merely if it matches what the instructor previously espoused (no deep thinking required here). In this particular class, of course, it's not hard to predict that none of these "students" is going to pass any test given by this "instructor"!

 

[Bob Enyart]

Existence Test for Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban & aharvey

Existence Test for Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban & aharvey

Okay, okay, so I'll add coban and aharvey, and I'll simplify by dropping Q2 & Q2a, and leave just these two:

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban and aharvey (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

To their credits, Jukia, Phy and coban all managed a courageous: Yes, we exist :banana: !
(Although Phy then equivocated a bit on the question itself, as though someone might reasonably answer otherwise.)

I'm now waiting to find out if Johnny and aharvey know whether or not they exist. Hey, so far, these TOLers are doing better than Doctor Kirk, the Denver Museum Curator!

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

At least a few of us here at TOL would LOVE to hear an answer to this from Jukia, Johnny, Phy, and aharvery.
As for coban, he mustered a solid "Nope" to Q2 (giving him a 50%, and an F grade also).

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!

Are we on a twilight zone episode? No, we're just talking to evolutionists!

-Bob Enyart

 

[jeremiah]

The funny thing is, that if Dr. Kirk were scoring them on this test, they would be doing far worse.........like 0%.
At least Bob is giving them 50%.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

 

[Johnny]

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban and aharvey (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

Without equivocation I believe that I exist. Whether or not I have undisputable logical proof that I do in fact exist may be argued by some on philosophical grounds. I have neither the philosophical knowledge nor the inclination to argue over such matters or to assess the validity of arguments either way. I just assume, without equivocation, that I exist.

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?

To think that one's opinion on a purely philosophical matter influences his "credibility" as a scientist steps outside the bounds of reason. It does not logically follow. Surely we do not judge the ability of our scientists to practice science by their handwriting skills. Why then do you find it appropriate to judge the ability of this scientist by his philosophy? You should not. You cannot. You are wrong for doing so. The only way you can judge this scientist's credibility as a scientist is to examine the quality of science he practices. You may make the case that he is a bad philosopher, but you cannot make the case base strictly on his philosophical statement that he is a bad scientist. There are no rules regarding who can and can't be a scientist. Practicing science isn't about who is doing it, it's about what they are doing when they claim to "practice science". A man might have a completely anti-science world-view and yet when he puts on his lab-coat and a picks up a pen he transiently adopts a scientific methodology in order to do his work. He is a scientist while in the lab, no matter how absurd his worldview is outside of the lab.

While you may find it suitable for your purposes to ridicule this man based on his philosophical worldview, it does not in any way follow that he is a lousy scientist. If science is based soley on the quality of the work done, not on the worldview of the scientist, how can you ever justify judging someone's capacity to do science by anything other than the science he does? I hope you will answer this question.

 

[Jukia]

The funny thing is, that if Dr. Kirk were scoring them on this test, they would be doing far worse.........like 0%.
At least Bob is giving them 50%.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

No, the real funny thing is that I am wasting my time even reading this admitedly inane thread posted by Pastor Enyart.
See Johnny's question in his last post for the real response to Pastor Enyart's 2nd question.

 

[immivik]

can i join and answer?

 

[fool]

I would like to unask the question for a moment if I may.
Why does it matter if I think I exist?

 

[immivik]

i suppose that if i mean for people to follow me or beleive what i say is true
i must be able to affirm 1) my existence and 2) my credibility. of course there
could be other requirements but these two are definately key requirements
for a leader!

 

[fool]

i suppose that if i mean for people to follow me or beleive what i say is true
i must be able to affirm 1) my existence and 2) my credibility. of course there
could be other requirements but these two are definately key requirements
for a leader!

What do leaders have to do with science?
Is not the truth available to anyone with a brain?

 

[aharvey]

Okay, okay, so I'll add coban and aharvey, and I'll simplify by dropping Q2 & Q2a, and leave just these two:

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban and aharvey (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

I'm absolutely certain I do. And, as I'm sure you're well aware when it comes to your own "absolute certainties," it's not like anyone could possibly prove me wrong, and if I am wrong about this, well, it couldn't possibly matter! It's hilarious to me that you attach such significance to the answer to a question that could be the poster child for the Journeys Not Destinations Society.

To their credits, Jukia, Phy and coban all managed a courageous: Yes, we exist :banana: !
(Although Phy then equivocated a bit on the question itself, as though someone might reasonably answer otherwise.)

I'm now waiting to find out if Johnny and aharvey know whether or not they exist. Hey, so far, these TOLers are doing better than Doctor Kirk, the Denver Museum Curator!

Well, for one thing, you've long lost the element of surprise with us.

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

Gee, Bob, did I use too many words last time? I would expect you of all people to think twice before resorting to the cheap "Have you stopped beating your wife? Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know" ploy. But, have faith, my answer is repeated below.

At least a few of us here at TOL would LOVE to hear an answer to this from Jukia, Johnny, Phy, and aharvery.
As for coban, he mustered a solid "Nope" to Q2 (giving him a 50%, and an F grade also).

Ah, so there is an answer key. Sounds like there's an error on the key, Bob. Don't feel bad, it happens to the best of us. Or, perhaps, the error is in the test itself, and you forgot to start each question with "According to 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!

Yeah, I guess I did use too many words... Assuming you guys are describing the situation accurately and (cough cough) objectively, Kirk fumbled a "most inane" question (where did this incident take place again?). That by itself (which is what you are asking us to consider) has as much bearing on his merits as a scientist as the fact that his shirt color and shoelace color sometimes match. 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.

Alas, multiple choice tests don't leave space for discussion. So my answer to CuratorExistsQ2b

- as you worded it is NO.
- as you meant it (i.e., starting with "According to Bob Enyart, ...") is YES, BUT WHO CARES? (I know, that wasn't exactly a choice, but, hey, students are known to write in the margins even in multiple choice tests).

Are we on a twilight zone episode? No, we're just talking to evolutionists!

I should caution you about careless inferences. For example, by the time I was made aware of this thread, 25 replies had already been posted. More importantly, this "most inane topic" was initiated by a creationist, and at least half of those 27 posts were made by creationists, so at the least it's a bit disingenuous to be rolling your eyes only at those wacky evolutionists!

 

[fool]

The former TOL poster known as Taoist stated that he didn't exist.
I always wondered what he meant by that.

 

[koban]

Okay, okay, so I'll add coban and aharvey, and I'll simplify by dropping Q2 & Q2a, and leave just these two:

CuratorExistsQ1: To Jukia, Johnny, Phy, coban and aharvey (each separately): Can you, without equivocation, indicate whether or not you exist?

To their credits, Jukia, Phy and coban all managed a courageous: Yes, we exist :banana: !
(Although Phy then equivocated a bit on the question itself, as though someone might reasonably answer otherwise.)

I'm now waiting to find out if Johnny and aharvey know whether or not they exist. Hey, so far, these TOLers are doing better than Doctor Kirk, the Denver Museum Curator!

Maybe they don't really exist. :noid:

CuratorExistsQ2b: If any scientist cannot affirm his own existence without equivocation, does this undermine his credibility as a scientist?
Please circle one: Yes / No / I don't know

At least a few of us here at TOL would LOVE to hear an answer to this from Jukia, Johnny, Phy, and aharvery.
As for coban, he mustered a solid "Nope" to Q2 (giving him a 50%, and an F grade also).

Hey! :sibbie:


I'll let Johnny's response stand as my answer:

To think that one's opinion on a purely philosophical matter influences his "credibility" as a scientist steps outside the bounds of reason. It does not logically follow. Surely we do not judge the ability of our scientists to practice science by their handwriting skills. Why then do you find it appropriate to judge the ability of this scientist by his philosophy? You should not. You cannot. You are wrong for doing so. The only way you can judge this scientist's credibility as a scientist is to examine the quality of science he practices. You may make the case that he is a bad philosopher, but you cannot make the case base strictly on his philosophical statement that he is a bad scientist. There are no rules regarding who can and can't be a scientist. Practicing science isn't about who is doing it, it's about what they are doing when they claim to "practice science". A man might have a completely anti-science world-view and yet when he puts on his lab-coat and a picks up a pen he transiently adopts a scientific methodology in order to do his work. He is a scientist while in the lab, no matter how absurd his worldview is outside of the lab.

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!

That's not true.

You didn't ask if we had "anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists", you asked "does this undermine Dr. Johnson's credibility as a scientist?"

If you had asked "Do you have anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists", I might have responded with something along the lines of "well, that certainly seems silly on the face of it" or some such.



Short answer (well, actually, longer than my initial answers) yes, I am sure of my existence.

Can I prove it to anybody else, beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Yes, to my satisfaction.

Whether they agree would depend on how many times I had to kick them in the butt. :chuckle:



Does this type of silly philosophical meandering have any impact on my respect for their competence as a working scientist?

Nope.

I would judge that aspect of the man based on his scientific bona-fides.



Question for Bob Enyart: 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?







(psssst - btw, Bob - you get an "F" for spelling)


koban

 

[koban]

The former TOL poster known as Taoist stated that he didn't exist.
I always wondered what he meant by that.

There is no spoon

 

[koban]

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!

That's not true.

You didn't ask if we had "anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists", you asked "does this undermine Dr. Johnson's credibility as a scientist?"

If you had asked "Do you have anything significantly critical to say about a scientist who doesn't know if he exists", I might have responded with something along the lines of "well, that certainly seems silly on the face of it" or some such.

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?