Evan Thomas

STS Faculty Profile: Evan Thomas

STS Faculty Profile

Evan Thomas is Assistant Professor of English.

What’s your area of expertise? What do you primarily research and/or teach? And what drew you to this field?

I like to study symbols and the way that symbols interact with machines. My specialization has to do with the strange combinations of images and texts that people made in the period after the invention of the printing press. In the terms of English PhDs, this makes me an “early modernist.” A more common term for my period of specialization is “the Renaissance.” I’m drawn to the Renaissance as a moment when individuals found a way to relate to the past and the future through their inner humanity. There’s a phrase used in the Renaissance, uomo universale, which points to the way that close critical attention to inner human life can be the basis for achieving historical connections. Renaissance humanists reached into the future by pulling technologies out of pure abstract thought, like linear perspective or the printing press; the humanists reached into the past by re-learning forgotten languages – in the process they re-animated ancient Greek philosophy. I try to practice some of this by keeping one foot in the classics and the other involved with current innovations in symbolic technology.

As for my personal background, I kind of like to think of myself as a transitional character in my corner of the academy. I want to break certain patterns that were part of my upper-level education. We’ve all seen some negative examples, so now let’s choose to do things in a better way. There are a lot of students at Mines who could use a fresh new approach to classes like Composition, and the best thing I can do here is to provide novel, intentional approaches.

Continue reading →

Writing on Demand vs. Writing on Purpose

computers, teaching, Technology, writing

By Evan Thomas

What does it sound like to sound educated yet know nothing? In a 17th-century comedy by Molière, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (“The Middle-Class Aristocrat”), a rich cloth merchant tries to imitate aristocratic education and speech. He takes philosophy classes and learns that his normal expressions “require a little lengthening” – he must learn how to stretch heartfelt statements (“your lovely eyes make me die of love”) into aristocratic contortions (“Of love to die make me, beautiful marchioness, your beautiful eyes”; “Your lovely eyes, of love make me, beautiful marchioness, die”; “Die, your lovely eyes, beautiful marchioness, of love make me”; “Me make your lovely eyes die, beautiful marchioness, of love”). The joke is on him, as his rhetoric tutor cruelly exploits his easy admiration for excessive, voluminous, amplitudinous, prolix, verbose, copious speech.

The example of the Bourgeois Gentilhomme is echoed in a new development in AI. Recently, OpenAI released ChatGPT, a large-language model (“LLM”) AI that appears to have tremendous facility at composing passable long-form texts. As an educator in higher ed, I don’t think that writing pedagogies are remotely ready yet for the instructional challenges posed by this technology. The main concerns that academics have had about AI and collegiate writing have to do with academic integrity. These are important concerns and addressing them will probably have massive relevance in the years to come.

Headline: Schools Ban ChatGPT Amid Fears of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Cheating
Headline: Teachers Fear ChatGPT Will Make Cheating Easier Than Ever

However, not all academics are especially concerned by the threat posed by AI language models. First, some academics express confidence that their domain-specific knowledge is too inscrutable for a machine to understand. Second, others suggest that the strength of their bonds with their students would make it impossible for their students to make an unnoticed switch to a different voice. Whether the first or second case is true, whether some content or character is indelible, there are finer, more constructive applications of LLMs to writing in higher ed.

Continue reading →

Technologies of Communication: STS Faculty Reflect

communication, Technology

This is the beginning of a short series in which several STS faculty share elements of science and technology that they find intriguing or meaningful. This opening post features reflections from Evan Thomas, Erica Haugtvedt, and Olivia Burgess on communication technologies. Their choices highlight both the ways we connect with each other and the role that technology plays in that connection.

Continue reading →

Automatic Art: or, How to Take the Human out of the Humanities

art, Humanities, teaching, Technology

By Evan Thomas

I often teach a general education Humanities course (HUM 200, officially titled Connections: Humanities and Technology) on the topic of “Automatic Art.” As a Humanities class, we study representative elements from the entire range of arts and letters:

Those are representative examples of the coursework – but what is “Automatic Art”? The term doesn’t actually have much reality outside of my course. (Frustrated students will often turn to the surrealist technique of Automatic Writing, which does exist, but has little bearing on the collection of objects we study.) I like to tell students that “automatic art” is equivalent to “taking the human out of art,” but what does that actually mean?

Continue reading →