Scientists are people too

Getting acquainted with the vicissitudes of the relationship between academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences and V.I. Petrik, I am becoming more and more convinced that the main thing is being lost sight of. More precisely, it is replaced by secondary, unprovable, uncertain and, therefore, beyond jurisdiction: the moral character of the inventor, strange examinations, fantastic sums that he allegedly earned (or is going to earn) from nanofilters, allegedly the patronage of the speaker of the State Duma, and similar details. All this has already happened and will happen many, many times more. Petrik - Kaznacheev - Grabovoi - Kashpirovsky - Garyaev - these are phenomena from the category of eternal. In fact, the problem of the Russian Academy of Sciences - Petrik lies on a completely different plane. At least a lot deeper and wider.

Firstly, one should fight for scientificity and rationality, and only then against V.I. Petrika. It is well known that this is far from the same thing.

Fig. L. Melnyk

Secondly, the inventors of nanofilters, transpersonal communication (old telepathy), phantom genomics, and torsion fields represent a consequence, not a cause, the pinnacle, not the foundation, of irrationality and pseudoscientificity. The basis is partly the delusion inherent in man, and partly the medical problems of the psyche. These are people who are unshakably stubborn in their rightness; they will never deviate from their chosen path. Should academics waste their energy and time? What exactly are academicians fighting for - for truth, the honor of their uniform, budget money, the health of citizens, or, finally, an organization called the Russian Academy of Sciences?

Thirdly, you should be well aware that there is pseudoscience and pseudo-inventors in the modern world. In my opinion, they represent independent trends, parallel to science, although the main stream is also fed from completely academic sources. It is enough to remember who initiated “scientific” parapsychology in the century before last. In fact, we are not surprised that historical science coexists peacefully with history fictionalized by Dumas and Radzinsky. Scientists in the United States are unlikely to be very excited about the fact that a parapsychology laboratory has been operating at Duke University since 1940, created by D.B. by Rain. Fourthly, Academician E.P. Kruglyakov (I don’t presume to judge the entire struggle commission he heads...) due to a logic that I don’t understand, strangely bypasses the moral side of the confrontation. Here's more about this last circumstance.

The fact is that my personal position was outlined a long time ago - in the article “Less panic. More humor" (Poisk, 1999, No. 31). The pathos of that publication was simple: something should really be done about pseudoscience and its continuation into practice. At the same time, the question of the attitude of the academic community to specific representatives of academic science, who have gone very sharply towards parapsychology, was brought to the forefront - corresponding member of the RAS A.G. Spirkin and Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences V.P. Treasurer. Even then it was extremely clear to me that this issue does not have a simple solution, not to mention an administrative one (normally it should not have one), since it lies entirely on a moral plane. But it shouldn’t be hushed up either. This material was apparently the first response to the commission’s call to unite the efforts of the scientific and pedagogical community. It was natural, since the problem of pseudoscience worried me, and I had previously published a small work (“Extrasensory perception - desires and possibilities”, Krasnoyarsk, 1995), based on materials from the Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical University. V.P. Astafiev I organized a seminar. But here's what's surprising. When I later entered into electronic and telephone contact with Eduard Pavlovich, introducing myself as the author of that newspaper publication, I was embarrassed that he had not read it! It’s strange, isn’t it, to address the people with an appeal and not be interested in how these people perceived the appeal?

Later, Eduard Pavlovich helped me with the publication of the popular science book “Beyond the Borders of Reality” (Novosibirsk, 2003), for which I was sincerely grateful to him then and now. Some time later, my monograph “The Phenomenon of Parascientific Knowledge” was published (Krasnoyarsk, 2007), which was immediately sent to E.P. Kruglyakov. I waited a long time for an answer, but, alas. Why such neglect towards a fellow member of the anti-pseudoscientific community? I suppose that my only sin is that, having given respectful credit to the efforts of E.P. Kruglyakov, I expressed in it a “seditious” idea about the uselessness of the commission, about the natural limitations regarding the freedom of thought of the older scientific generation (including myself personally). Judge for yourself whether my “sin” is great. Having crossed out people like me from the calendar, who will you be left with, Eduard Pavlovich? With only Torquemadas? Will it benefit our common cause? I will express one more “seditious” consideration. It seems to me that in his desire to ban pseudoscience, not noticing the realities of life, not showing the proper measure of tolerance, ignoring the scientific and philosophical approach to its phenomenon, E.P. Kruglyakov and others like him are becoming similar to V.I. Petrika. Only on the other side. Is there a big difference?

Morals and personalities are important in every serious matter, and discussions about pseudoscience are no exception. It is impossible to separate these two circumstances, or rather, it is quite possible, but then we turn into characters in the famous song “sometimes here and there, sometimes…”. This is already a little cowardice, imperceptibly turning into immorality. In fact, how much courage is there to fight with petriks, being not connected with them by corporate ties? But for some reason I have not come across any reasoned critical materials about the parapsychological views and experiments of Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences V.P. Kaznacheev, neither from the members of the commission, nor from members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences in general. But the authority of Vlail Petrovich in parascience and its outgrowths into pseudo-medical practice is an order of magnitude higher than Viktor Ivanovich with his nanofilters, which are hardly known to the average consumer of parascientific knowledge. There is such an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.T. Fomenko and his original views on historical chronology. The negative, scientifically reasoned reaction of the scientific community to his historical research is also known. However, it is curious that the Department of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences did not publicly express its attitude towards his historical works, however, maybe I simply did not see him. How difficult it is to be brave can be judged, for example, from the wonderful book by A.G. Allahverdyan and co-authors “Psychology of Science” (Moscow, 1998). In one of the sections, the authors touch on the problem of falsification. They note by name some foreign pillars of science, noticed by historians in adjusting the data. Having informed the reader that among those who corrected the primary data there were also domestic scientists, the authors did not mention a single name.

I am writing about this because we are, willy-nilly, invading the issue of freedom of research and faith. The issue of faith, like blood, is very delicate; straightforwardness of views and actions here can result in injustice. Therefore, in my opinion, it is wiser to agree that you can be a efficient person and at the same time do not forget about polishing your nails. There are any number of examples. A.M. Butlerov is a wonderful chemist and a famous spiritualist; Academician N.P. Bekhterev - a classical, famous physiologist, but who did not doubt the material resurrection of the dead; Professor B.I. Kuznik, who was recently awarded the I.P. medal for scientific achievements. Pavlova, but absolutely confident in the reality of any parapsychological phenomena. How should a fighter against pseudoscience deal with this? I don’t know - everyone decides for themselves, to the extent of their personal preferences.

Let's remember that the laboratory of V.I. Academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences visited Petrik, leaving positive reviews about his discoveries and inventions. As one of the commission members - E.P. Kruglyakova explains this fact? Yes, very artless; you see, they are all directors of institutes, the institutes are not funded enough by the government. So they wanted to get some money from Petrik. This fact can be interpreted with slightly different nuances. Directors of academic institutes are seasoned, practical people who understand that the science they represent as scientists and managers is one type of activity. Petrik is a parallel movement, which by and large does not represent serious competition for them, although, perhaps, it partially intersects with their themes. Why not feed yourself at the expense of this eccentric, who only needs a piece of paper with a flattering review?

What follows from this? Nothing more than the falsity of the thesis about the monolithic nature of the scientific and pedagogical community in relation to pseudoscience. The most unpleasant and surprising thing about this is that some part of academic science actively resists any discussions on the topic of “pseudo” and the related topic of falsehood in academic scientific research. My experience in this area is limited, but significant. The report “Paranormality and Medicine” was included in the conference program, the presentation took place, but the abstracts were not published. The report “Anti-scientific speculation and ideas in human ecology” was rejected because “... goes beyond the scope of the problems considered at the conference.” Surprisingly, it was not suitable for the section “Theoretical Aspects of Human Ecology.” After I had to be outraged at the highest level, one sympathetic colleague, on condition of anonymity, told me as a great secret that the RAS organizers of the conference (“Human Ecology”, 2004, Arkhangelsk) forbade touching on the problem of pseudoscience. Trifle? I agree, yes. But, alas, there are quite a lot of such “little things”; As far as I know, I'm not the only one who has encountered these little things. The point is not only the fear or reluctance of some people to discuss this topic. There is also general indifference and apathy in the scientific community. At one of the remarkable conferences (2007), organized by the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Sudak, a report was made in which the author, to explain the therapeutic effect of his device, assumed as an initial postulate that 30% of the molecules in pure water are ionized. How many of those sitting in the hall were surprised by this “fact”? I'm sure so. But only I could say this publicly. This is not courage, but a Pavlovian conditioned reflex - how else to serve in the field of higher education?

What's in the bottom line? The same words that were written 12 years ago: “less panic, more humor, gentlemen scientists.” There’s only one thing to add: look at the sides, really, it’s funny and useful.

Leonid Medvedev,
dr. biol. science
professor of Krasnoyarsk pedagogical
University named after V.P. Astafieva

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter .

Scientists are people too

See also: