Kas Thomas plays the credentials card

February 17, 2014 • 1:21 pm

Kas Thomas, whose egregious anti-evolution piece at Big Think (“The trouble with Darwin“) I criticized yesterday, is trying (and failing) to respond to his many critics in the comments. Yesterday he accused these critics of being “haters” (an unjustified and ad hominem accusation), and now, instead of responding to the many scientific criticisms of his views, is playing the “credentials card”.

If you look at his readers’ comments, they’re heartening and impressive: almost every commenter is a defender of evolution and a critic of Thomas’s specious claims that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Among them I recognize former students and some or our readers.

So how does Thomas respond? This way: “I have biology degrees, so I’m more credible than you are.” Have a look:

Screen shot 2014-02-17 at 10.38.28 AM

And this one is incredible:

Screen shot 2014-02-17 at 10.37.21 AMWhat an arrogant fellow! I have to admit that I went over and flaunted my credentials as well, just to tease him, but of course the issue at hand is not whether degrees give you more or less credibility in criticizing evolution, but whether those criticisms have merit. Thomas’s, as I hope I showed yesterday, do not.  Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)

Reader Ed Clint, in yesterday’s comments on this site, also found that, on a site called “10 things about me,” Thomas posted this:

Picture 1

Clint commented dryly, “Indeed you have not, Mr. Thomas.” Why flaunt degrees if you don’t use them?

Anyway, I wash my hands of this man. If Big Think were savvy, they’d keep him miles away form their site from now on.

157 thoughts on “Kas Thomas plays the credentials card”

  1. “Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)”

    Degree self flagellation?

    BS MA self flagellation?

      1. This is a complete non sequitur, but was inspired by your comment. Often when discussing things, academics (especially from the humanities and social sciences) will discuss “unpacking an argument”.

        By analogy, I propose a new piece of vocabulary for dragging woo-ish nonsense into the light. It works on multiple levels. First, it is taking an argument may not be very clear, and explains the key points. Second, it is treating a non-scientific topic.

        undeepak an argument – to extract the essence of a woo-filled “argument” by clearly laying bare its assumptions and implications. Sometimes the result of undeepaking is an empty set. At other times, when there is an argument to be made, it boils down to untestable assertions about the world filtered through the woo-meister’s particular viewpoint.

        2. Whenever Deepak talks, or people talk like him, and I recognises it as woo, I usually refer to it as an outburst of “chopralalia” and his adherents as “chopraphages”. It’s a compound of his name and the bullshit these people spew.

    6. Maybe he got his BA, unsure on what he learnt, took the MA, and found: ” nah, this can not be right, where the jesusy-thingies ..”

      So he never used the (wrong study, he thinks) degrees.

      Then, why he thinks he can write something “profound” about Darwin?

      .. gods move in mysterious ways (in shaming his followers) ..

  2. “Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)”

    There is. It’s called Argument From authority.

    1. Most sources label an argument “Appeal to Authority” only when the authority being cited isn’t actually an authority on the issue at hand. The Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to make this distinction.

      Since Kas Thomas has degrees in biology, his claim to expertise in the area is plausible, which would make his argument non-fallacious, although still wrong.

      1. My understanding is that argumentum ab auctoritate does not distinguish between whether the authority is truly credentialled enough to be called an authority – I imagine that would just degenerate into a battle of the authorities. I’ll name this one proelium inter auctoritates 🙂

        1. The concept of evidence itself is relying on authority, unless you got it yourself, so the utility of footnotes and references goes away if they provide a fallacious argument.

          Regardless, a true authority is never the final word on a subject, but it can make the conclusion more likely.

      3. No, not “only” when the authority being cited isn’t actually an authority. Where experts disagree (as they clearly do here – for example Jerry is obviously an expert) then just listing your credentials, instead of addressing your opponent’s arguments, is fallacious.

      4. My understanding of the term has been that an argument is an Appeal to Authority if the citation of the authority constitutes the entire argument, whether ot not the authority is legitimate.

        So my understanding of the term means that it’s still an AtA, even if the authority is legitimate, if the appeal is all that’s presented. One must also present the reasons for the authority’s legitimacy. Kind of like “show your work”.

  3. He sure knows how to make a bad situation worse. The only honourable way to save face now is to admit to his mistakes, apologize for his reaction and seek help in correcting rhis inaccurate article. By his reactions though, he probably lacks the self awareness to realize that he is acting defensively because he’s embarrassed and will go on believing his critics are just haters.

    1. Mr Thomas continues to dig his hole deeper over on his blog. I can’t seem to post links but if you click on the link to his “10 things about me” in the article above you can navigate to his latest bit in this kerfuffle.

    2. Considering his attitude (and most likely character), the best he can do now is just shut up. Think of something else .. how about attacking cosmology (at least he has no degree there)? ..

  4. “So let’s not play ‘whose education is more real’ here, please.”

    Okay. But can we play “whose understanding of evolution is more supported by real universities?”

  6. I remember that woman working at Ham’s Creation Muesum that had a legit PhD. Michael Shermer interviewed her; the video is still on YouTube. She said that there were no pathogens before the “fall.”

    The trick is to get a PhD in an area that doesn’t involve your silly religious ideas.

    1. The next time I get into a discussion with a YEC, I’m going to ask on which day god created the smallpox virus, the malaria parasite, and the guinea worm (and syphilis, if I’m really feeling snarky). If he or she responds that they didn’t exist before the fall, I’m going to ask where in the bible he or she learned that.

      Follow up question; which of the eight, count ’em eight people on the ark carried the human-specific parasites?

        1. So, the devil is an experimental biologist, whereas all god wanted to do was to keep people from knowledge??

          I’m on the winning side!

      2. Follow up question; which of the eight, count ‘em eight people on the ark carried the human-specific parasites?

        Considering the state of things (personal hygiene, a place where humans and all sorts of vectors are packed closely together, how about all of them?

        Come to think of it, these parasites must have been on board, as otherwise they would not have survived the flood. I wonder if Noah c.s. knew about it, and how grateful they were to their god for saving these poor little critters. In their bodies.

  7. “Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)”

    Yes, it’s called bullsh*tting

  8. Hmm, UC Santa Cruz graduate here and now I’m a bit embarrassed by Mr. Thomas. Time to do better.

  9. coming soon to a theater near you:

    The Three Stooges in “Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk”

    starring:
    Resa Azlan
    Deepak Chopra
    and newcomer Kas Thomas

    Directed by: Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock

    1. The burn in that one is of epic proportions.

      It’s amazing the type of hubris that Thomas must have to openly play the degree credentials card on Teh Innertubules these days. Does he seriously think that nobody out there could trump him?

      b&

      1. I suggested to him that he must therefore be extra embarrassed that we hoi polloi could find his errors in his article. There has to be a name for this move. I think it’s pointing out the obvious flaw in his ridiculous attempt to shut everyone up. Happily, Wikipedia gives me the answer (because, unlike Kas Thomas, I know how to google things):

        The phrase argumentum ad verecundiam is sometimes used synonymously to mean ‘argument from authority’. While it is linked, it does not have the same meaning. The Latin noun verecundia means “modesty” or “shame”. Its link to arguments from authority is that they are used to make those who lack authority feel shame about discussing issues they lack credentials of expertise in, and modestly back out of an argument.

          3. It makes me wonder if he’s used these strategies before & if they’ve been successful, who does he keep company with?

          5. I feel a twinge of shame for pointing out his Twitter account & its description that identifies the “cool people” who follow him: “Followed by a president, a prime minister, and a certain musician’s artist-widow.” but it tells you a lot.

          8. Well, I’m followed by a president Obama’s Twitter account follows back automatically.

            I’m more pleased that I’m in one of Brian Blessed’s circles on Google+.

            /@

          9. I have a feeling he’s “John Smith” on the other thread. After all, 5 out of 6 unnamed complexity theorists choose Darwinless outcomes for the complexity theorists that chew outcomes.

      1. Your opening sentences were brilliant. I like to imagine Thomas being bashful at having been called out for his demand for credentials before anyone criticizes him, but I suspect he won’t allow that particular helpful emotion to bubble to the surface.

  11. One thing I genuinely don’t understand is why he thinks his date of graduation before one of his commenters is relevant. Why would graduating earlier than someone make you right? Surely the person with the most recent degree has been taught the most up to date science? I don’t get it.

      1. I wish I had a degree in Acheulean technology because I’d totally beat all the recent engineering grads! 😀

          11. What we’re gonna do right here is go back, way back, back into time.
            When the only people that existed were troglodytes… cave men…
            Cave women… Neanderthal… troglodytes.

            …This one woman just lay there,
            Wet and frightened. He said: “Move… move”. She got up. She was a Big woman. BIG woman. Her name was Bertha. Bertha Butt. She was one
            Of the Butt sisters. He didn’t care. He looked up at her and said: “Sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me…”

          15. all this talk of going way back brought this little childhood memory bubbling up. I think we giggled quite a bit about “one of the Butt sisters”, pondering troglodytes in the Alaskan outback, after pulling it in on our little crystal sets.

    2. I guess he sees himself as more senior than the earlier grad so that gives him even more authority in his mind.

  12. How about argumentum ad baccalaureate, hitting your opponents over their heads with your degrees.

  13. I think we’ve got a term for self proclaimed iconoclasts who combine argument from authority with credential pissing contests: hypocrite. But I like the idea of calling it deepaking.

    Diogenes, in a thread on junk DNA, over on Sandwalk, has come up with a couple of terms that I think are a good fit with this “Big Think” article:

    Pubwhore: one who will do anything with his mouth in order get attention from the media.

    Paradigm Shaft: lying about the content of a theory, and replacing it with a different, dumber theory, which one then claims to have disproven, inducing a revolutionary Kuhnian “Paradigm Shift.”

    1. “Pubwhore: one who will do anything with his mouth in order get attention from the media.”

      Doesn’t work for me. Sounds like a sexist term for a woman who likes sex and hangs out in pubs. And even it the “publicity” were clear I think we should be wary about using sexist terms as the root for academic or media criticism framing. I don’t think “pubwhore” would be any more acceptable than, say, “media slut”. Using terms that denigrate women to denigrate people who seek publicity legitimizes the terms as criticism of women.

      1. I hadn’t unpacked it as thoroughly as you. But if I had it wouldn’t have helped me any, as I don’t think of “whore” as being gender specific. May be something to do with my peculiar background. I can number more male whores among my past social acquaintances than female whores. Comes from having spent a brief stint as a street kid, before I decided I hated that life, and did something about it. Nor do I think of whore as a term associated with those who like sex. A long way from it, in fact. I’m not saying no one makes such associations, or even that they are not the norm. Just that they seem very strange to me.

        1. I don’t see it as gender-specific in the current context either. It looks to apply well to Kas Thomas, though.

      1. Who’s the Kas that won’t back out
        When there’s haters all about?

        …

        You’re daaaamn right!

      2. Well, I think “Paradigm Shaft” is really just “strawman”…

        I think “Paradigm Shaft” is a proper subset of strawman. The distinguishing characteristic is one of motivation. I think most strawman arguments are motivated by a desire to win an argument, or to insulate one from an idea that one finds threatening and uncomfortable. But a paradigm shaft is motivated by the hope of achieving fame by having ones name associated with the triumphant new idea, without having to mess around with all that time consuming deep thinking and study necessary to engender a new understanding. And all that tedious work needed to show that the triumphant new idea encapsulates all the territory of the old idea, and extends our understanding into new ground.

  15. I have seen this particular move referred to as the “Harvard Gambit”. I can’t remember where I read it though.

    1. That term was used in a Forbes article detailing the back and forth between Jerry and Deepak.

    3. For some reason I just flashed on a SNL skit about a Harvard reunion attended by Ted Kaczynski…

  17. I tried to read the comments, but a troll named “David” is responsible for half the posts and only detracts from anything that might resemble a discussion. The power of one person to ruin a thread….

    1. Yeah, and all he did was to ask, over and over, for one example of a transitional fossil.

      Religion poisons everything, *especially* minds.

  19. Here’s my longstanding Standard Answer to Creationists (or any -ists) who play the “Credentials Card” instead of giving evidence-based reasoned argument:

    ONE’S CREDENTIALS ARE IMPORTANT REALLY ONLY ON TWO OCCASIONS:

    1. WHEN APPLYING FOR EMPLOYMENT (in which case if one has none one may be passed over);

    2. WHEN ONE SAYS SOME DANG FOOL THING (in which case if one has none one may be forgiven).

  20. There should be a name for that kind of flouting one’s credentials…

    How about, “pulling The Wiz?” A Seinfeld reference, with a kind of subtle double entendre.

  21. Speaking of anti-evolutionists, I see the Catholic website “Strange Notions” has a new post up devoted entirely to attacking Jerry Coyne on Adam and Eve (yes,it’s as bad as you’d expect).

      1. Yeah, that’s standard for Catholic deepity- it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to get them to actually say something.
        Like the difference between “literally true” and “literalistically true”- i.e. the story of Adam and Eve and the snake and the apple and the garden is literally true, but it’s not literalistically true- there wasn’t any snake or garden or fruit and Adam and Eve were hominids who had souls infused….

    2. I was amused by this:

      “Nor am I sure how Dr. Coyne’s assertion necessarily entails a falsification of human specialness (whatever he means by that). I never heard of such a doctrine in my Storied Youth1 though it is pretty obvious from a scientific-empirical point of view. You are not reading this on an Internet produced by kangaroos or petunias.”

      Maybe kangeroos and petunias have more sense than to spend their time making up nonsense about deities on the internet.

  22. JAC: “Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)”

    Since you are at the U of Chicago, where I’m sure Latin is spoken, you might use “He is guilty of _de jactantia culus_!” [I’m still working on the Greek.]

    1. OK, the Greek should be something like:
      επαίρεται από τον κώλο του! (epaíretai apó ton kó̱lo tou, roughly “boasting out of [one’s] a**!”)

      1. According to Google the Polish version would be “chluby z jego dupek.” Just thought I would add that–perhaps for Hili, although she is probably too refined to say it!

          3. Pedant mode:
            “argumentum ex ano” I think (‘ex’ takes the ablative).
            Likewise Krystof’s original should, I believe, be “de iactantia culo”.

            (Diane MacPh might be able to help out here.)

          6. Pete Taylor: Thanks for the correction! You are actually correcting Google translate–my last encounter with Latin was in 1959 when I took it in high school! (But I had the vague feeling “culus” wasn’t quite right.)

            Apparently my Greek was better. It was vetted by a dear friend who is native Greek! I can’t vouch for the Polish or Chinese versions, though.

          7. My Ancient Greek is rusty. It looks like you displayed an infinitive though and perhaps it should not be. I’m way too lazy to look it up in my Smyth. 🙂

          8. It’s Google Greek which is probably neither ancient nor modern. But my Greek-speaking friend found nothing to complain about–but it’s also possible she didn’t look at it carefully!

          9. Modern Greek and Ancient Greek have some grammatical differences as well. It will be correct for modern Greek I’m sure.

          10. krzysztof1: You’re welcome!

            By the way, how do you display diacritics?

            e.g. The ablative usually ends with a long vowel, often written with a macron above the letter.

          11. Pete – on a Mac you hold down the vowel & get a choice. Not sure how to do so on a PC.

  23. Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)

    Flauntulence?

    1. Well, yeah. Unfortunately for him he should have known that folks with, um, more girth to their CVs than his would show up.

      He seems to have something of an ego and a very thin skin because he hasn’t reacted particularly well!

  28. Thomas should maybe stick to articles like “Should Google Pay Its Users?” (a fit for his technology background) and avoid fields where he has no real understanding.

    /@

  29. “Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)”

    chopriate (verb) – to chopriate: Flaunting ones professional credentials in lieu of addressing valid criticisms of ones ideas. Often accompanied by declarations of ‘nerve touching’.

  30. It’s called an Argument from Authority–at least to my understanding. In this case, he’s putting himself as the Authority: “my arguments are valid because I have credentials.”

Comments are closed.