Two reactions

Among the many responses to the rally of scientists that took place on October 13, there are a couple that are not exactly critical, but rather provocative. Moreover, in terms of logic and style, one of these responses is extremely poor quality, the second is quite masterful. Let's start with the first one, although there is a rule - do not respond to bad attacks from trolls. However, sometimes it is not a sin to break this rule for educational purposes.

An article was published on the website of the Libertarian Party, absolutely enchanting in its viciousness and inadequacy. Title: “The Sharikovs want more money for science.” The Sharikovs are scientists gathered for a rally. Author not specified; Apparently, the article can be considered editorial. The meaning: scientists, there is no point in begging for money from taxpayers, get a job as specialists in large companies, and in general, science should be financed by business. The style is insults and overexposure. Soon there appeared a selection of statements by economists about the rally, in the same spirit, but more moderate in form. This selection was commented on by Mikhail Gelfand , but I want to dwell on the very phenomenon that prompts seemingly educated people to make such statements.

The phenomenon is called “fundamentalism”. There is a concept of “liberalism”, which is based on the priority of the individual over the state. And there is liberal fundamentalism, where this principle is taken to the extreme and takes the form of a set of dogmas. Libertarians are a sect in this series. One of the dogmas: the state should be reduced to a minimum, if not to zero, along with taxes. Citizens themselves will manage their money correctly. But what about modern science, for example? She doesn’t get involved in this dogma! What doesn’t fit is denied: science comes down to the development of technologies - business will pay for it. Those who understand that science is something more are looking for a loophole: “Citizens themselves will realize and support science without the state...” - imagine the Large Hadron Collider chipping in.

I saw a flock of libertarians at the Last Autumn - young passionaries with pleasant faces. With us, every passionary is worth its weight in gold, especially if life forces him to undergo a serious educational program. Therefore, I think there is no need to persecute these guys; it is better to spend energy on clearly explaining to the general public (including government officials who understand this subject at the same level) what science is and why it is needed. We have already published a number of statements on this topic (see, for example, the article by Z. Silagadze and K. Filipchuk “Why is fundamental science necessary?” - TrV-Nauka No. 63, September 28, 2010), but such educational program should go far beyond our newspaper.

The second, masterful act of trolling was carried out by Viktor Shenderovich ( www.svobodanews.ru/content/article/24359446.html ). Its essence is approximately this: You say everything correctly, but it’s too late to drink Borzhom - you, like the rest, were taken away from all the levers of influence at the beginning of the 2000s. When they were taken away, you had to speak out, but now you can only humbly ask or fight for access to the Body. “In short: let’s keep quiet.”

By and large, Shenderovich is right. We must fight not only for our specific interests, but also for general ones - for the surrounding social environment. Including standing up for the defense of others, because when they come for you, there will be no one to stand up for you. The last phrase about “keeping quiet” is, of course, pure provocation in order to provoke people. Well, there's no harm in egging us on.

Scientists, by the way, made a powerful performance in the late 80s and early 90s (maybe if they hadn’t stepped forward, everything would have been much worse), but then they disappeared into thin air. This is understandable: you need to mind your own business, and politics is a dirty business. But many years passed, and politics became involved with us. It seems like it’s time to raise your voice again, but somehow it doesn’t work out - some are old, some have allergies, some have something to lose. Or simply - inertia.

So, Shenderovich is right in the grand scheme of things, but there is also a small part, and here he is wrong.

A meeting, even one dedicated to purely shop-floor issues, is useful even regardless of whether people listen to it or not. By the way, there was noise in the press, and they even listened to some small details (see commentary by E. Onishchenko ). Several hundred people who have triumphed over inertia in order to gather and express a consolidated opinion - this is civic activity, even if the opinion concerns purely shop-floor issues. Once they defeated inertia - you see, and next time they will win, and others will join. Even if there is no visible effect from such actions, there is a hidden “chemical” effect. And he, perhaps, has become noticeable lately.

Boris Stern