I don't claim that my thesis is earth shattering or even particularly good, ...
One doesn't have to be either in order for it to satisfy the intent. It just has to be sufficiently novel so that you aren't just reflecting work already done. And it has to be sufficiently engaging to constitute significant research -- in short, you have to pull enough rope off the spool in order to hang yourself, but not so much you can rig a sailing ship with it.
Buzz Aldrin's PhD dissertation on orbital rendezvous was limited to Gemini-type missions using Gemini-type equipment and treated only a few general techniques to effect a rendezvous using scant line-of-sight observations. It didn't reach either too broadly or too deeply, although tangentially (pun intended) he formulated a basis for rendezvous with uncooperative spacecraft that has proven effective and enduring over time.
but I know I was thorough and I know the process of obtaining it was followed correctly....
That's why we do them. The PhD dissertation is meant to prove you know how to research a new topic thoroughly and correctly, avoiding common errors of reasoning and empiricism. If it fails to instill in its author an enduring motive to conduct proper and thorough research, then the author deserves little of the respect that would ordinarily be afforded. The letters PhD are a double-edged sword, for they command a measure of respect but they also set a high standard that must be maintained for any research subscribed with that degree.
...I was given a real grilling in my viva voce exam (I believe in the US it's a 'Defense of dissertation').
Correct. A typical American doctoral candidate endures three oral examinations. First he defends his choice of topic and the means by which he intends to examine it to his panel of faculty who will supervise him. When they are satisfied the topic is sufficiently novel and remarkable, and his means are sound, he is allowed to proceed.
Second, at some point during his studies he is subject to a battery of varied subject-matter oral examinations from his field to demonstrate general proficiency in it. These are rigorous enough practically to require a prior degree in the field. In contrast to the typical American university experience centered on classroom and laboratory activity, preparing for PhD "orals" is best accomplished in the English mode of individualized study.
Finally, at the conclusion of his research and writing, he defends his completed dissertation to the entire university -- students and faculty from any college or department are permitted, although in practice it is only the faculty and students from his field who desire to attend. (Older tenured professors at some of my universities attended all defenses as a rule, mostly to ask general scientific and historical literacy questions.)
I find it offensive that someone whose research skills are so poor and who deliberately cherry picks evidence is claiming to have gone through the same process that I did.
Indeed, in a rather rare occurrence I attended the defense of a computer science PhD candidate who was not only denied his degree but also brought censure upon his supervising faculty when we discovered that the cases by which he illustrated his conclusion had been cherry-picked and that he had not, as claimed, discovered a general solution to a class of problem. The problem arises in automated interference detection in the simultaneous design of assemblies, which is one way in which computers can aid engineers in getting it right the first time. First-order problems in this field have easy solutions. Second- and higher-order problems do not, and are the ones most commonly manifest in practical design work. I believe he was allowed to revise his research, and the censure of the faculty did not extend to accusing them of complicity -- they were not complicit, just complacent. But it did hammer home to us that just because one embarks upon doctoral work does not guarantee its successful, honest completion. And more importantly, the gauntlet you run is real.
The anonymity of the allegedly bedoctored author at Aulis is inappropriate. The desire to subscribe one's degree but not one's name raises much suspicion. It is a ploy to enhance credibility without the naturally attendant risk. And the risk is what compels experts to be true to their expertise. I can think of no legitimate reason why a doctor of some subject should withhold his name from a treatise intended to be an example of that doctoral prowess. A legitimately qualified author writing defensibly within his field of expertise should have no problem exposing his identity to those who may wish to dispute him. If he is on solid ground, both factually and in his faculty of judgment, there is no legitimate fear -- and indeed some substantial, natural expectation of such a revelation on the part of his readers. Anonymous expertise is no expertise. Expertise is vested in the individual and may not be attached to whatever ephemeral identity the author wishes to invent.
Were the name provided, we might discover, for example, that the views expressed in the treatise are not principally the views of other practitioners of the relevant science, thus his stature in the field in which he has professed expertise would be diminished. We presume he would want to continue practicing in his field, and thus he must insulate his reputation from such a misuse of it.
Or we might discover that his degree and expertise are in an unrelated field. Again, anonymity in this case serves to hide the misapplication of irrelevant expertise.
Or at worst we might discover that the degree does not exist at all in any form, and that some layman has simply appended the honorific to a pseudonym in a sophomoric attempt to forestall legitimate criticism.
On the other hand it always amuses me that the HB community is very vocal in its distrust of scientific credentials and academia, except when they find someone who claims to have them with whom they agree.
They believe that we are bound to respect mainstream academics regardless the outcome. Hence if one of those academics seems to agree with them, they view it as a slam-dunk argument that we must respect without argument. It is a manifestation of the converse accident. We generally eschew as evidence the "expert" opinions of those whose expertise cannot be substantiated. And that is approriate. But the converse is not necessarily true: if someone has substantial expertise, we are not categorically bound to accept his judgment as necessarily being evidence. The foundation of expertise itself is only one pillar in the structure of an argument based on expert judgment.
Fringe theorists conflate two amphibolies of "authority." They are unwilling to distinguish between speaking with authority, as befits the knowledge and wisdom acquired through devoted study and practice, from authority as an arbitrarily appointed leader, disobedience to which engenders punishment. In eschewing the latter from a position of socio-political argumentation, they draw in the former as a sort of appendage to it. It is obvious that unlettered conspiracy theorists are generally ignorant of the topics on which they speak, and so it is easy to understand that they denigrate mainstream knowledge by calling it indoctrination from above, serving no practical purpose. They must have some reason for valuing their own intuition above other factors.
But yes, the paradox is comically apparent. Experts who, naturally enough, endorse mainstream or majority views have "obviously" been brainwashed by the Establishment to parrot unthinkingly the desired party line, or else are complicit with socio-political authority to conceal the truth. But experts (or those set up to appear as experts) who seem to agree with conspiracy reasoning are "obviously" unassailable sages whose word cannot be disputed.
