Support idealists

In St. Petersburg, a court will soon be held, which can be attributed to the category of “monkey processes” - ignorance against science. In this case, ignorance has several other forms than in classical monkey processes, but equally aggressively: the well-known Victor Petrik filed a lawsuit to protect honor and dignity to academicians Evgeny Aleksandrov, Vladimir Zakharov and Eduard Kruglyakov (see the TRV-HOWN No. 12 (81) of June 21, 2011). The background of the incident Petrica was widely covered in the media, including the TRV, so we will not dwell on it.

On July 26, a press conference “Pseudoural: what is dangerous for Russian society” was held, in which all three defenders participated, and a representative of the co-shaft was conducted. - “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, Vladimir Porsobin, who also awarded Petrika with attention in a number of publications (see, for example, http://rostov.kp.ru/daily/25620.4/787339/ )

The first was Vladimir Zakharov, telling about the meaning of the struggle against pseudoscience. He compared this business with the mission of ecologists: the latter are fighting for the purity of the environment, and the struggle with pseudoscience is to clean the intellectual environment from dirt and garbage. And for the same work and for another work they do not pay money - idealism is driven by people (which, we note, inspired the ascetics of all time and peoples. - B.Sh.)

The most detailed entry of Eduard Kruglyakov was the entry of Eduard. He spoke about the work of the commission of pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research headed by him, which was created by the Academy of Sciences on the initiative of academician Vitaly Ginzburg, and cited a lot of examples of support for pseudoscience by state organizations. Evgeny Alexandrov supplemented the list of examples.

The case, which received the name “Petrikgate”, was not said in their speeches, but even without him the said was impressive. For example, stones “irradiated” in the pyramid were launched into orbit. Or the famous "Gravitsapa", launched on the satellite "Jubilee". It, in violation of the law of preservation of the impulse, is designed to create traction using a flywheel, however, the “traction” is small - 28 grams. (The political officer is right: the crocodiles fly ... but nashonko-nizhonko). But probably the most striking episode from the past is the allocation of 500 million Soviet rubles for various studies associated with torsion fields. One of the St. Petersburg journalists tried to refute this, referring to the non -recognition of this fact by the FSB, but Evgeny Alexandrov testified that the tranche of 20 million went through these classes through the goy, where he was at that time the deputy director.

And of course, the shadow of Petrik, who was in the hall, spoke when questions began. The most vivid on behalf of this shadow was the St. Petersburg journalist-ecologist Sergei Lisovsky. He accused the academicians of criticism Lysenko and Stalin, although there was a great USSR then, that they themselves did nothing to prevent a crisis in the country, but only insert sticks into the wheels for those who are able to lead the country out of the crisis with their outstanding developments. He spoke several times, more and more absurd and aggressive. The people began to laugh, first slowly, then louder. And after the proud replica “Who you laugh at, laugh at yourself!”, In general, some began to crawl from the chair.

By the way, it was felt that the speaker sincerely believes in what he was saying. Also convinced, also an idealist. Only a catastrophic difference in intelligence.

I asked the question: do academics feel support? Support from below by journalists and scientists. And support from above from the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In particular, whether the Presidium reacted to the second famous statement of Gryzlov, who compared the commission to combat the pseudoscience of the Inquisition (who burned Copernicus, who said “she is still revolving”, see http://gazeta.ru/interview/s33337459.shtml )?

Kruglyakov replied that they feel support from below, first of all, from the side of the journalists who take the interview themselves, speaking on their side. In particular, they are supported by a club of scientific journalists with whom they are constantly in contact. With support from above, the situation is more complicated. The only reaction of the leadership of the Academy to the statement of Boris Gryzilov was the statement of Yuri Osipov, made in a very soft form, that Gryzlov is wrong.

Add to the said. These three academicians by the will of fate fell on the front front of the struggle against obscurantism. They protect our interests - by us I mean at least the vast majority of those who read this text. The force that is opposed to them cannot be underestimated: on the side of obscurantism in this case, there is a large financial resource and support for the second, or the third (how to count?) Persons in the state, as well as many lovers of "fishing in muddy water." Meanwhile, these three middle -aged people are puffed up for all of us who perfectly understand who Petrik is and what his celebration promises us.

Leaving these people without all kinds of support in this monkey process would be the height of cowardice on our part. We cannot dictate to the court, but we can create an atmosphere of publicity, in which neither power nor money can dictate to the court. Journalists can play a big role here. But not only they are scientists, creative intelligentsia, teachers. Any actions, whether petitions, discussions on the Internet or access to the square, even in the absence of an immediate result, are not useless. So the atmosphere is created.

Boris Stern
Photo by N. Demina

PS Audio recording of the press conference can be downloaded at http://narod.ru/disk/20176546001/dm201717.mp3.html

We hope that soon the record will appear in the form of the text, this will be reported on the website of the TRV. And now we have given the opportunity to write the press conference to write what they consider necessary, in addition to what was said.

* * *

Vladimir Zakharov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

-Preparing for a press conference, I deliberately decided not to raise the question of Petrik. Everything is clear with him, except, I knew that academician Yevgeny Alexandrov was going to talk about him. I am more interested in the question: why did the problem of fraudster Petrik go to the national level? Why is he generously provided with television time on famous television channels? Why is the State Duma speaker, the third person in the country, does not consider it shameful to be its co -author? Until recently, he denounced the commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences on pseudoscience - the main critic of Petrik - in obscurantist. But this commission was created on the initiative of the Nobel laureate of the famous academician Vitaly Ginzburg. Who are “fanatical fans” of Petrik's filters, which the country's president Dmitry Medvedev speaks of?

And the most important question: why in civilized countries there can not be a situation where a person with a criminal past whose “scientific achievements” are unequivocally disavowed by the authoritative commission of the Academy of Sciences, continues to enjoy high patronage and prank on national television? In what other state could this be?

Answer: In no case. To understand why this is happening in our state, we will start with television. I admit, I took part in the last television program with Petrik on the fifth channel. He spoke for three minutes and disconnected, saying that I did not want to continue the discussion. It was a mistake to agree to speak at all. I did this, succumbing to the literally tearful persuasion of the editor. They needed this program because they knew that they would watch it. Indeed, there are a lot in the country-if not fans of Petrik, then people who think that "there is something in this Petrik, and academicians who opposed him are moving envy or even self-interest." These same people are ready to believe that a bottle of water, raised from the depths of Baikal and listening to Beethoven's sixth symphony, can bring happiness. Television men know well that the consciousness of so many people in Russia is thoroughly closed, especially since they themselves thoroughly put their hand towards this clouding.

They may object to me that in other countries with mass consciousness, not everything is fine. Everywhere there are astrologers, fortunetellers, healers with hand over. But Russia is a special case. Behind us, the Soviet period of history, which left a deep and far from all a realized trace in our brains. Many people believe in two dangerous myths:

1. Breakthroughs in science can be performed not only by professional scientists, but also by brilliant folk nuggets that do not have special education. This is a deep mistake. For at least a hundred years, science has been done only inside the workshop of professional scientists.

The workshop of scientists has developed historically and lives according to quite clear laws. Scientists drive scientific curiosity and ambition. For the scientist, his reputation, which determines his place inside the workshop, which is quite rigidly structured. Reputation for the scientist is everything, therefore he is responsible for his results and statements. There were cases when scientists, due to the "face loss" finished the life of suicide. Therefore, scientists are ideal for the role of experts. For to give out a poor -quality examination is to lose a face.

The speaker of the Duma Boris Gryzlov was indignant at the very fact of the existence of the commission on pseudoscience: on what basis do these people take the courage to distinguish pseudoscience from science?! And on the same basis on which the doctor distinguishes a sick person from a healthy one and makes a diagnosis. The nose failed - it means syphilis. The law of impulse preservation is disturbed - the engine project for a spaceship is insolvent. The absurdity of the notorious “gravitsypa” is obvious to every school physics teacher.

So, do not believe in uneducated nuggets. Another thing is that sometimes a little -known scientist expresses the brightest idea. But this is an event inside the workshop.

2. If the previous myth is to one degree or another everywhere, then the second is our exceptional property. This is a belief that there can be a special, Russian science that lives a separate life from the science of the world. This myth was grown in the USSR during the years of the iron curtain, when we had a “people's academician” Lysenko and others, smaller ones.

The Soviet Union and Lysenko have long been owned by stories, but the hope that we suddenly have our own genius, who will show Kuzkin Mother to all Western smarters, is quite alive. It is her survivability that explains the survivability for a quarter of a century of the absurd project of torsion fields and torsion generators. When asked why there are no torsion generators in the West, there is an answer pronounced with a crafty smile: “They are there ... you see ... still have not thought of it.” And all this - drinking Scottish whiskey, which "there" thought of.

It seems that the musty idea of ​​the exclusivity of the Russian (almost diluted) science Mil to the heart and the charming TV presenter Nick Shcherbak, and the highest persons of the state. And this is a very cozy idea, because it allows you to saw budget money without the danger of being subjected to international examination.

* * *

Evgeny Alexandrov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

-At the recent press conference, a fan of Viktor Petrik Sergey Lisovsky (defending Stalin and Lysenko) pathetically asked why academics are evading public discussion with Petrik. To this, Vladimir Zakharov answered Lermontov’s epigram: “To shame a liar, joke over a fool and argue with a woman is all the same as drawing water with a sieve.” And he added: "Because Petrik liar." I wanted to develop this thesis, but could not squeeze into close regulations. That's what I wanted to add.

For those who still consider Petrik a brilliant scientist, I must say that science is completely incompatible with a lie. And for Petrika, a lie is a favorite working tool. I will give only a few eloquent examples.

1. Petrik in an unknown way I took possession of the contents of my electronic mailbox; In particular, he himself announced that he knew the contents of my correspondence with journalist Valery Lebedev. Regarding where he knows, three versions were heard:

- His agents bought her from Lebedev (version of Petrik).

-Our correspondence was sent to him by some “patriots students”, concerned about my intrigues against Petrik (Version of Lisovsky).

-I myself sold correspondence for three thousand dollars to some American! (The later version of Petrik)

Is it necessary to prove the deceitfulness of all these incompatible versions?

2. I received a letter in which the unknown threatened me to open my eyes to Petrik on my “conspiracy” against him and Russia. And for this “crime” I allegedly promised $ 100,000! I immediately sent this letter to Petrik, requesting his comment.

Petrik replied that he was amazed and could not imagine who could write such stupidity. But soon our relationship was aggravated, and he began to intimidate me. He no longer hid that the letter was the work of his hands, but later announced the disclosure of the “conspiracy of academicians” against Russia. This time, the “conspiracy” was that the academicians undertook to discredit Petrik - “the pride and hope of Russia” - for a million American dollars. As evidence, a mention of the James Randy Foundation was used from steamed correspondence. (In fact, Randy promised to pay a million dollars not to fighters with a pseudoscience, but to the one who will demonstrate the commission of the fund of some paranormal phenomenon.) Petrik voiced this version on TV and launched on the Internet, but soon realized that this did not climb into any gates, and changed to the following: Academics sold with Petrik Aquaphor. At the same time, he no longer bothers himself with arguments, acting on the principle of “slander, something will stick!”.

3. Over time, Petrik’s hatred switched to Edward Kruglyakov, whom Petrik began to vilify in his blogs - with the help of agents. Among other things, Petrik said that Kruglyakov was not a scientist and that he received the title of academician as a reward for party work - as the secretary of the party committee of the Institute of Nuclear Physics. And this despite the fact that Kruglyakov was never a member of the party!

4. Petrik launched the charge to Vladimir Zakharov, as if Zakharov transported young scientific brains abroad for money. Anyone familiar with the system of recruiting employees in Western universities understands what dense nonsense it is.

So, is the foregoing with the image not that brilliant, but at least some scientist?

If you find an error, please select a fragment of the text and click Ctrl+Enter .