Professor of nothing
| Part of the series on|
Logic and rhetoric
A professor of nothing is a fallacy that occurs when a source is introduced as a "Professor" or "Doctor" or similar (and thus authoritative), yet either they are not a professor or doctor or their field of expertise is not the topic at hand.
The vast majority of the "positive" reviews of Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race are introduced as "Dr." yet are not qualified to speak authoritatively on archaeology.
Young Earth creationist Ian Juby has also occasionally been introduced as "Professor Juby", at least by Carl Baugh, despite not having any semblance of qualification in paleontology (or any other scientific field).[note 1]
Simply put, if someone's not an expert in a field, they can't be cited as one.
Every time an "expert" is touted with a title but without their area of expertise, be wary. If the quoter cannot provide the field in question, the source's authority can also be questioned.
Articulation in the highest degree
A familiar presence on my TV
Acceptable presentation for the powers that be
Transparent bullshit for everyone to see
It's not your place to question and doubt
Your worship of power is completely devout
You hammer dissent with a ferocious shout
As we collectively roll our eyes throughout
You sound real smart but that's an illusion
A professor of nothing bordering on delusion
A willing conspirator acting in collusion
With sinister forces who thrive on confusion
- See for instance Potholer54's YT video nominating Juby for the 2011 Golden Crocoduck. Calling Juby "Professor" might be a mistake by Baugh who is such an awfully incompetent apologist/creationist that Ken Ham(!) has warned his followers not to rely on Baugh's BS. However, Juby didn't actually correct Baugh.