Forensic science

So, the evening, as they say, ceases to be languid. This is me about the arrest of Olga Zelenina, an expert at the Penza Scientific Research Institute of Agriculture, accused of “assisting the smuggling of narcotic drugs on an especially large scale.”

And it was like that. Entrepreneur Shilov was accused of drug smuggling in 2010: in the 42 tons of edible poppy he imported, according to investigators, there were about 240 grams of drug-containing impurities.

Zelenina conducted a study at the request of the lawyer and gave a conclusion in which, as I understand, she did not agree with the calculation methods used by the investigation. And because of this conclusion, she was now arrested. The logic, as far as I can understand, is this: Zelenina’s conclusion is incorrect because it does not correspond to the conclusions of the investigation. And she is such an excellent specialist that, of course, she could not have made an accidental mistake. This means that she can be considered a member of an organized criminal group.

This matter is absolutely terrible, not only because I feel very sorry for the lovely woman Olga Zelenina (I met her at a meeting of the Public Chamber dedicated specifically to “poppy” matters), but also because it could mark the beginning of a new trend: after all, according to this Indestructible logic can blame any specialist who gives a conclusion that does not suit the investigation. And will it be easy for a lawyer to find a specialist who will agree to conduct research if a conscientious conclusion can lead to jail time? That is, such a practice will completely destroy the very institution of independent examination, which is trying to somehow resist the arbitrariness of the repressive machine and allows for at least minimal competition in the process. Of course, the judge may not take into account the expert’s opinion, but it is still more difficult to turn a blind eye to the flaws of the investigation and the clumsy work of “experts” in uniform or in civilian clothes. Needless to say, what a solid nail this is in the coffin of our justice.

But this is such a long preface, and I’m moving on to a forensic linguistic incident. A trial will soon take place on the claim of Redox LLC to protect the business reputation of a legal entity against the newspaper Nizhegorodsky Rabochiy and journalist Irina Slavina. This “Redox” produces certain medical products and actively promotes them, using scientific expressions such as “electric vitamins” and “verbal wave tuning.” The journalist wrote a sharp article in which she criticized the company’s advertising strategy ( http://nizhegorodsky-rabochy.rf/vakansii/item/813-bolshoy-obman-za-vashi-dengi.html ). And so, as usual, a lawsuit. Something similar has already happened with Petrik and his filters. Scientists and science journalists came out in defense of Slavina: their Open Letter was published in TrV-Science ( http://trv-science.ru/2012/05/17/otkrytoe-pismo-3 ).

I will not analyze the article now: a linguistic examination has been appointed in the case, and let’s hope that our colleagues will do their job well. But I was interested in one technique used in the Redox advertising texts themselves. The fact is that both the journalist and the authors of the Open Letter were most outraged by the fact that Nobel laureate V.L. Ginzburg was mentioned in the Redox advertising products. This looks especially cynical because Ginzburg was an ardent fighter against pseudoscience and all sorts of pseudo-scientific scams, so this “verbal wave attunement” in combination with his own name is probably turning over in his grave. “Redox” considers its position invulnerable, since it surrounded the mention of the academician’s name with “little tricks.”

Let's take, for example, this fragment of the Redox advertising text (it is not the only one - the phrase about Ginzburg is repeated several times): This mechanism is implemented by converting sensations into electrical energy. This phenomenon is called electric vitamins. The tale of Doctor redox Electric vitamins was awarded the Nobel laureate Vitaly Ginzburg. Gallery Electric Vitamins (address). Before use, consult a specialist.

Now they tell us: they say, what’s wrong - we’re not saying that the Nobel laureate approved our products, we’re just telling us that a certain “physicists’ fairy tale” received a certain prize, well, not from Ginzburg, of course, but from a foundation named after him. This fairy tale has nothing to do with our products, and in general it is a fairy tale. And not a word about the products. So we don’t need permission from Ginsburg’s widow.

And here it’s time to remember G. P. Grice, a linguist and philosopher, the founder of the theory of implicatures (I already mentioned him in my columns on another occasion). Grice formulated the Principle of Cooperation operating in language: “Your communicative contribution at a given step in the dialogue should be such as is required by the jointly accepted goal (direction) of this dialogue.” This principle includes several postulates, one of which is the postulate of relevance (“Stay on topic”). Accordingly, if a speaker makes some statement during his speech, we assume that this statement is relevant to what he is talking about. Especially if the speaker has given no indication that he is going to deviate from the topic. He could, for example, at the beginning of a “lyrical digression” say And by the way, and mark the end of it and the return to the topic with the combination So here. He could, but he doesn't. And we understand the text in the sense that it’s all on the same topic: the transformation of sensations into electricity, and vitamins, and Nobel laureate Ginzburg, and the address of the gallery, and sending to a specialist. Let's conduct a simple experiment: replace the phrase about Ginzburg with another: This mechanism is implemented by converting sensations into electrical energy. This phenomenon is called electric vitamins. In 1958, B. Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Gallery Electric Vitamins (address).

The text has become completely absurd precisely because there is no way to see the connection between the Pasternak Prize and the context. But the original text is perceived as coherent - solely due to the fact that the listener believes that Ginzburg meant the same electric vitamins, the properties of which were discussed above and which are sold at the address given below.

Of course, there is no direct statement in the text: they say that the academician noticed our product and, going to his grave, blessed it. But it is not “Redox” that has been brought a lawsuit for the protection of honor and dignity, which involves information solely in the form of a statement. The point is only that the journalist had reason to believe that Ginzburg’s name was used in advertising in bad faith.

Irina Levontina