Science and the Moral World

A short article by L. Klein with a clearly provocative and provocative title “Scientists as a Class” made me respond to an idea that has long been relevant for Russian society: the special, almost messianic, role of the intelligentsia in the life of Russia. Despite the fact that for L. Klein, the intelligentsia is not the best definition for a thinking person, nevertheless, the final conclusion of his thoughts (“Perhaps it’s time to create a special party of scientists, which will include not only scientists, not only scientists, but and those who would like power to belong to educated, free-thinking, honest, reasonable and competent people"), does not allow one to doubt his faith in the power of the intelligentsia: a complex, unarticulated, powerful and persistent alloy of education, good manners, rationality, decency, high morality, carried out in every infinitesimal act, word, feeling.

It was the intelligentsia, at all turning points for society, that was a subtle and sensitive catalyst not only for cultural attitudes, but also for all the painful, weak and vulnerable points of social and moral life. The intelligentsia has always, often at the cost of their lives, shown the full terrible essence of social, intellectual and moral diseases, forcing the world to change. But she could not always predetermine the outcome of these transformations. At the very beginning of the terrible, dashing 90s. of the just past century, Doctor of Philosophy S. Savelyev, in the preface to the works of Dmitry Merezhkovsky “The Coming Boor” and “Sick Russia”, gave an accurate and succinct definition of the problem that was anticipated throughout the 20th century, but was realized in all its tragic completeness already in the 21st century: “Rudeness is one of the most common psychological violence against the individual, against which society has never created protective means. Moral criminals feel complete impunity - as a rule, there is no justice for them. In order to protect yourself from this plague of the twentieth century, it is necessary to look at new facts and phenomena of life with a close and armed gaze.” According to freethinkers, individuals who are independent in their feelings, actions and opinions, it is necessary to resist rudeness, immorality, unprofessionalism, moral emptiness and death.

Unfortunately, rudeness and moral criminals have almost enslaved our society, turning it into a space in which not only the intelligentsia, but even united mediocrity (Herzen) cannot live. It would seem that the idea of ​​a party of scientists proposed by L. Klein is truly a real and promising solution for our society. Supporting this idea at its core, I would like to add the following reflections, which, perhaps, will make those who do not want to turn into boors and moral criminals think.

As the reader remembers, in one of the conceptual disputes between the heroes of Crime and Punishment, investigator Porfiry Petrovich asks Raskolnikov how to distinguish chosen people, those who have the right, from ordinary people, from trembling creatures. And already at the very beginning of the twentieth century, Father Pavel Florensky asked a similar question: “How can one distinguish a church from a tavern or an American lock-breaking machine from the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” - also cultural heritage? The Great Penitential Canon of Andrew of Crete from the works of the Marquis de Sade? So I have a question of the same nature: how to distinguish scientists - the vanguard of the intellectual intelligentsia - from those who are conventionally classified as scientists. What I mean?

As a person who, due to his professional activity, is accustomed to differentiate and explain everything clearly, formally and purely in the legal field, I note that scientists are considered to be those who are engaged in science and have certain achievements and confirmations in the scientific field of activity. These necessarily include scientific publications, participation in scientific conferences, seminars, discussions, round tables, writing reviews, reviews of scientific works, the presence of patents, certificates of inventions, discoveries, as well as diplomas of candidates and doctors of science (in other words, scientific degree) in a specific scientific specialty. These representatives of scientific activity may well be a hard and real basis for joining the party of scientists, because are guaranteed, public and objective indicators of belonging to the class of scientists. Similarly, for example, titles in a class society are indicators of social differentiation. But just as Molière’s famous tradesman in the nobility cannot be fully attributed to the upper, chosen class, so people with pieces of paper allegedly indicating their belonging to the class of scientists cannot be considered intellectuals.

As an example of the complexity and ambiguity of this problem, I will take only one and extremely topical aspect of it. Thus, with all the importance of the formal indicators of the class of scientists, in our time of triumphant boor they cannot be considered a sufficient and real representative of the world of scientists. It would seem that the scientific degrees and publications that a person can present to the whole world testify to his full right to be in the party of freethinkers, educated, well-mannered, honest, professional - the party of scientists. However, the problem of plagiarism, which is so widespread, no less than AIDS, does not allow us to focus on formal, substantive, and even moral and ethical indicators, and most importantly, to be confident in their objectivity and reliability when it comes to the class of scientists, science and scientific community.

Plagiarism is terrible and pathological in itself, like a cancerous tumor. But even if identified and presented, it is not a guarantee of hope for recovery. Plagiarism is a deception, a simulacrum of scientific activity, which a priori does not require proof. But, as it turned out, even proven plagiarism is more terrible and is a fact of the successful life of boors and moral criminals than hidden, drowned in the general garbage of quasi-scientific waste paper and moral illegibility. I have been working on the Artamonova case (Donetsk National University, Ukraine) for almost two years, which can serve as a vivid and demonstrative example of this kind of death of science and the moral world as such. In order to formally belong to the class of scientists and receive all the benefits of this social group, Artamonova robbed Russian famous and young scientists, and even students specializing in the field of mass media and Internet journalism. She successfully received a PhD in social communications from Ukraine in 2010 on the basis of obvious plagiarism. Almost immediately, Russian scientists discovered and confirmed the facts of numerous plagiarism by Artamonova. In particular, M. Simkacheva (Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University), A. Akopov with his students (Rostov State University), I. Zasursky with the staff of the “Convergence Laboratory” at Moscow State University. Lomonosov has repeatedly publicly confirmed that Artamonova appropriated other people’s scientific achievements. It would seem that with this approach, the problem of plagiarism, at least in one specific case, has been solved: scientists stood up to defend the purity and vitality of their socio-cultural group, its moral principles and foundations. They did not want to lose their scientific name - a guarantor of publicity capital and scientific and social significance. It is quite possible to draw a conclusion about the viability of the class of scientists even in our time and their readiness to organize a special party as a socially strong and necessary phenomenon for us. However…

Firstly, the problem with Artamonova has still not been formally, in the legal field, resolved: she is still a doctor of science, professor and head of the department of journalism at Donetsk National University. And even if the reader objects that this is Russia - not Ukraine, their complete lawlessness and the triumph of moral criminals, for whom there was no legal, intellectual, or moral control, is not our competence, but our scientists have proven themselves properly, then I I will object. Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of plagiarism like Artamonov’s in Russia, as well as many people who do not value their name. The problem is not so much to hunt for each specific case of plagiarism, but to minimize it as such, pushing it to the margins of scientific and moral life, making it a truly shameful fact of the existence of the intelligentsia. Only in this case is it possible to form a party of scientists and make it effective.

Secondly, the marginalization of plagiarism is possible only if both the thief of intellectual property and those who support him are punished, thus voluntarily experiencing the metamorphosis from scientists into intellectual criminals. Is it possible for V. Ivanov (Artamonova’s scientific consultant and the first reviewer of her, so to speak, monograph), V. Buryak and N. Zelinskaya (reviewers of her, so to speak, monograph), A. Meleshchenko, S. Gorevalov, N. Yablonovskaya (opponents to, so to speak, Artamonova’s dissertation), A. Kholod (an expert on the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine on, so to speak, Artamonova’s dissertation) and everyone who gave her feedback on the abstract, voted “for” in the special council, citing in their scientific works , classified as scientists, although they are all proud of their scientific achievements? Is it possible for them, who have completely lost the value of their own name, to be accepted into the party of scientists? Each of them is ready to provide lists of their scientific achievements, display them on departmental and personal pages on the Internet, and post them on Wikipedia, but does all this really make them scientists? Or maybe, at best, philistines in science, and at worst, scientific and moral criminals? And is it worth these, so to speak, scientists who consciously accepted and persisted in the fact of plagiarism, obvious and confirmed by real authors, i.e. shame and crime, check for class affiliation? And will this change anything significantly in their boorish nature? But they will be the first to run to the party of scientists if it becomes a socially prestigious project, they will try to take leading positions using their usual methods, since formal indicators allow it. But there are plenty of people like them in Russia too.

Thirdly, the problem of organizing and successful social existence of the class and party of scientists is also determined by the active social and moral position of those who consider themselves to be the scientific intelligentsia. Thus, Artamonova, with her group demonstratively supporting her, is surrounded both in Ukraine and Russia by people who consider themselves to be members of the scientific community. But how many of them, who are not directly related to Artamonova’s plagiarism and are considered experts in the field of journalism and social communication, have expressed their scientific and moral attitude to this shameful fact? Thus, this nameless silent scientific community, without creating a strong public opinion, supported scientific and moral criminals, rather than decent, independent, free-thinking scientists. But the silent ones, along with the boors of science, will run to the party of scientists. But there are plenty of people like them in Russia: those who are accustomed to remain silent have lost the right to freedom and their own name.

How can all of them, in the plane of a society devoid of true morality, be distinguished from those for whom the class of scientists is something much more than a new prestigious project, which, just in case, in order to stake out a place, it is better to enter? How can we create a party of scientists with the plagiarists who support them, sympathize with them and are silent?

But there is still an answer, as long as there is at least one scientist, just one person who values ​​​​his name, capable and ready to demonstratively, principled, openly, consistently and to the end resist the incoming boor.