View> Home / Science and Society / Scientists are also people

Scientists are also people

Getting acquainted with the ups and downs of relations between academics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and V.I. Petrik, I’m more and more convinced that the main thing passes from sight. More precisely, it is replaced by a secondary, unprovable, uncertain and, therefore, unreasonable: moral appearance of the inventor, strange examinations, fantastic amounts that he seemed to earn (or is going to earn) on nanofilters, as if the protection of the speaker of the State Duma and the like details. All this has already been and will happen many, many times. Petrik - Kaznacheev - Grabovois - Kashpirovsky - Garyaev - these are phenomena from the category of eternal. In fact, the problem of RAS - Petrik lies in a completely different plane. At least much deeper and wider.

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

Rice. L. Melnik

Secondly, the inventors of nanofilters, transpersonal communication (old-therapathy), phantom genomics, torsion fields are a consequence, and not the cause, peak, and not the foundation of irrationality and pseudo-prison. The basis is partly the error inherent in a person, and partly the medical problems of the psyche. These are non -stubborn people in their rightness, they will never turn off the chosen path. Is it worth academics to spend strength and time in vain? Why are academicians actually fight - for the truth, honor of the uniform, budget money, the health of citizens, or, finally, an organization called RAS?

Thirdly, it should be well represented what is in the modern world of pseudo-dungeon and pseudo-sounders. In my opinion, they are independent trends parallel to science, although the main channel is fueled from quite academic sources. It is enough to recall who in the century before last initiated a “scientific” parapsychology. In fact, we are not surprised that historical science peacefully gets along with a story, a fed Dumas and Radzinsky. Scientists in the United States are unlikely to experience great excitement that the Duke University since 1940 has been operating a parapsychology laboratory created by D.B. Rain. Fourth, academician E.P. Kruglyakov (I do not undertake to judge for all the fighting commission he he headed ...) Due to the logic incomprehensible to me, the moral side of the confrontation is strangely circumvented. This is the last circumstance in more detail.

The fact is that my personal position is indicated for a very long time - in the article “less panic. More humor ”(Search, 1999, No. 31). The pathos of that publication was simple: with a pseudo-ass and continued to practice it should really do something. At the same time, the question of the attitude of the academic community to specific representatives of academic science, which had very abruptly went towards parapsychology, was brought to the forefront-the Correspondent of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.G. Spinkin and academician of the RAMs V.P. Koznacheev. It was very clear to me even then that this issue does not have a simple solution, not to mention administrative, (it should not have it normally), since it lies entirely in a moral plane. But it should not be silent either. This material was apparently the first response to the call of the commission to combine the efforts of the scientific and pedagogical community. It was natural, since the problem of pseudo -dwarves worried me, and earlier I published a little work (“psychic - desires and opportunities”, Krasnoyarsk, 1995), according to the materials of which at the Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafyeva I organized a seminar. But what is surprising. When I later entered into electron-telephone contact with Eduard Pavlovich, introducing myself as the author of that newspaper publication, it was embarrassed by the fact that he did not read it! It is strange, is it not true, to turn to the people with an appeal and not be interested in how this people perceived the appeal?

Eduard Pavlovich later helped me with the publication of the popular science book “Abroad of Reality” (Novosibirsk, 2003), for which I was sincerely grateful to him then and now. After some time, my monograph “Phenomenon of Paranacle Knowledge” (Krasnoyarsk, 2007) was published, which was immediately sent by E.P. Kruglyakov. I waited for a long time, but alas. Why is such a neglect of a fellow on the antipseral community? I assume that my sin is only in the fact that, having given respectful due to the efforts of E.P. Kruglyakova, I expressed in it a “seditious” idea of ​​the unnecessary commission of the commission, about the natural limitations regarding the freedom of thinking of the senior scientific generation (including personally). Judge for yourself whether my "sin" is great. Having crossed out of the shrines people like me, with whom you will stay, Eduard Pavlovich? With only torquemades? Will there be benefits to our common cause? I will express another “seditious” consideration. It seems to me that in my desire to prohibit pseudo -Nauke, not noticing the realities of life, not showing proper measure of tolerance, ignoring the scientific and philosophical approach to its phenomenon, E.P. Kruglyakov and others like him become similar to V.I. Petrika. Only on the other side. Is the difference great?

Morality and personalities are important in every serious matter, no exception - discussions about pseudo -nouns. It is impossible to separate these two circumstances, or rather, it is quite possible, but then we turn into characters of the famous song “Somewhere some of us sometimes ...”. This is a small cowardice that imperceptibly converts into immorality. In fact, is the courage to fight with the Petriks, being unrelated to corporate connections with them? But something I did not meet reasoned critical materials about parapsychological views and experiments of the academician of the RAMs V.P. Kaznacheev neither from the members of the commission, nor from the members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the RAMS. But after all, the authority of Vlail Petrovich in Paranaca and her processes in Limedician practice is an order of magnitude higher than Viktor Ivanovich with his nanofilters, hardly well -known to the ordinary consumer of paranacious 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 its historical research is also known. However, it is curious that at the same time the department of the history of the Russian Academy of Sciences did not publicly express the attitude to his historical works, however, maybe I simply did not see him. How difficult it is to be brave, one can judge, for example, by the beautiful book by A.G. Allahverdyan and co -authors "Psychology of Science" (Moscow, 1998). In one of the sections, the authors affect the problem of falsifications. They note by the name of some foreign pillars of science, noticed by historians in the preparation of data. Having informed the reader that among the correcting primary data there are also domestic scientists, the authors did not note a single name.

I am writing about this, because we will voluntarily invade the problem of freedom of research and faith. The question of faith, like blood, is very delicate, the straightforwardness of views and actions here can result in injustice. Therefore, in my opinion, it is more reasonable to agree that you can be a good person and at the same time do not forget about polishing nails. Examples as much as you like. A.M. Butlerov is a wonderful chemist and a well -known spirit; Academician N.P. Bekhtereva is a classic, well -known physiologist, but did not doubt the material resurrection of the deceased; Professor B.I. Kuznik - for scientific achievements not so long ago awarded the medal I.P. Pavlova, but absolutely confident in reality of any parapsychological phenomena. What to do with this fighter with pseudonaucu? I don’t know - everyone decides for himself, to the best of personal attitudes.

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

What follows from this? Nothing more, like the falsity of the thesis about the monolithic of the scientific and pedagogical community in relation to pseudo-ass. The most unpleasant and amazing thing in this is that some of the academic science actively resists all discussions on the theme of “pseudo” and the subject of falsehood in academic research close to it. My experience in this part is small, but indicative. The report “Paranormality and Medicine” was included in the conference program, the performance took place, but the theses were not printed. The report “Anti -scientific speculation and representations in human ecology” was rejected, because “... goes beyond the framework of the problems under consideration”. Surprisingly, he did not fit the “theoretical aspects of human ecology” for the section. After I had to be indignant at the highest level, one sympathetic colleague, on the condition of anonymity, told me as a great secret, that the Ranov organizers of the conference (“Human Ecology”, 2004, Arkhangelsk) banned the problems of pseudo -dungeon. Trifle? I agree, yes. But, alas, there are quite a lot of such “little things”; As far as I know, I have not come across these trifles. It is not only the matter of the fear or unwillingness of some persons to discuss this subject. There is still general indifference in the scientific environment, apathy. At one of the remarkable conferences (2007) organized by the Institute of Higher Nervous Activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Sudak, a report was made in which the author believed to explain the therapeutic effect of his device as the initial postulate that 30% of molecules were ionized in pure water. Are many of those sitting in the hall surprised this “fact”? I am sure yes. But only I could publicly say about this. This is not courage, but the Pavlovsky conditional reflex - how else to serve in the field of higher education?

What's in the dry residue? The same words that were written 12 years ago: "Less panic, more humor, gentlemen scientists." Add only one thing - look at yourself, right, it is funny and useful.

Leonid Medvedev,
doct. Biol. sciences,
Professor of the Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical
University named after V.P. Astafyeva

Related articles

Discuss in the LiveJournal Community Trv_Science_ru