"Obscurant" Award: pros and cons

Nikita Sokolov , historian, editor of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski:

In my opinion, there are three most important considerations in favor of the established prize:

Firstly, in the last few years in Russia there has been an obvious increase in the flow of completely obscurantist “intellectual products”. Television channels and book and magazine publishers, trying to impress consumers with something unprecedented, have gone to great lengths and, in the “popular science” category, launch sensational messages that are completely inconsistent with the scientific picture of the world, which in the near future threatens Russian society with severe injuries.

Secondly, in countries with a continuous cultural tradition on such a Homeric scale, this replacement of science with pseudoscience and pseudoscience is impossible due to the existence there of close-knit scientific corporations that deservedly enjoy the trust of society.

In Russia, these corporations, precisely as bodies of independent expertise, were purposefully destroyed in Soviet times, and after the fall of the communist regime they were not restored. The fight against obscurantism is waged by a few lone fighters and small partisan detachments.

And thirdly, laughter is a strong weapon of weak numbers, and in such a balance of power it would be a sin not to use this weapon.

Vladimir Surdin , laureate of the Enlightener Prize, senior researcher. SAI MSU, associate professor of the physics department of MSU, member of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience:

I am against the establishment of such an anti-premium.

First of all, there is no such thing as bad advertising.

Secondly, the word “prize” (like scientist, professor, academician, academy) is perceived by the people with an a priori positive connotation. People rarely go into detail.

Thirdly, the existence of an anti-premium makes us completely forget about ordinary scientists: scientific work is transferred to the plane of politics. People perceive science as just another PR method: they say, a scientist wants to stand out in some way - either with a Nobel Prize or an anti-prize, so as not to remain in the shadows.

The tradition of science: we don’t talk about, don’t write about, don’t refer to incorrect works. The tradition of journalists: anything unusual is newsworthy. A journalist doesn’t care how to attract the public’s attention. Today we will admire a real scientist and forget about him. Tomorrow we will giggle at a simpleton scientist and forget about him. It entertains the public, it feeds the journalist, it interferes with science.