By radical skepticism

The co -founder of the Dissernet project Andrei Zazakin responds to the publication of the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky in the Rossiya Gazeta

"Ti estin aletheia?" (What is the truth?) - asks Pilate in the Gospel (John 18:38). Some consider this phrase a manifestation of moral or epistemological relativism, connecting it with ancient skeptics. What the historical prefect of Judea had in mind, whether he read the classic of the ancient skepticism of Pirron, who taught that there is neither true, nor false, nor good, nor bad - we will not recognize.

However, Minister Vladimir Medinsky, who recently spoke with an article in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta (which was the first public response to a statement about deprivation of a scientific degree. - Ed.), As it seems, could be considered a worthy student of Pyrrhone in the part regarding the radical rejection of the distinction between the true and false. True, walking along the path of such radical skepticism, Medinsky spoke so much that even Pilate would be ashamed of him. It is impossible to seriously disassemble the pamphlet directed against the existence of truth as such, but it is possible and necessary - individual nonsense of its author.

Let's start with the little things: Mr. The Minister ascribes an application for depriving his degree to “citizens from Dissernet. Many times, including me, it was explained that the statement of the professors of Vyacheslav Kozlyakov, Konstantin Yerusalimsky and Dr. PhD (PHD), Ivan Babitsky, was not a statement by Dissernet due to the fact that Dissernet is busy studying plagiarism, not professional failure. “The last desired plagiarism in my work was searched for, sicked, and never found.” Apparently, Mr. Medinsky did not read the statement of prof. Kozlyakov with co -authors to the end. The statement says not only about inconsistencies and nonsense in the dissertation of the minister, but also about plagiarism. It seems that Vladimir Medinsky judges a statement submitted to him on media reports. Those really did not attach much importance to the statement of plagiarism.

Meanwhile, the authors of the application indicate that fragments from the dissertation of Natalia Voshchinskaya “Sociocultural problems of the French“ Rossi ”of the last third of the XVIII century” migrated to the Minister without links and quotes (pp. 16-17, 446–447 dissertations and p. 9–11 of the auto Referee). And although the volume of written off here is not at all Dissernetovsky, I will allow myself to quote prof. Kozlyakova with colleagues: “A small volume obviously cannot serve as an apology, since we are talking about the direct assignment by the dissertation of the authorship of the Regulation to be defended, and this situation was taken from N.Yu. Voshchinskaya entirely. " My experience at the meetings of the VAK Presidium shows that even if this instance is inclined to undeservedly forgive dozens of plagiarism pages in the introductory and methodological part of the dissertation, then even old Vakovsky spenders react very nervously to plagiarism in the applications.

"Well, what kind of" pseudoscience "in the 21st century?" - the minister asks. Make rid of what is called. Even in the exact sciences, false scientists are completely nearby. I remember that in my student years, some fighters with Einstein, offering to buy a super-shaped brochure about why the special theory of relativity was wrong, was mistaken in my student years. When I was in the free University of Berlin, one gentleman came to us, who tried to get to the university at least a secretary, and told his original theories of the universe. When I asked to write him Lagranjian of this theory, he embarrassedly asked me what Lagranjian was. I sent him to read the textbook, and since then he has not come. Finally, a month ago in Vake one “Doctor of Sciences” defended the concept of “bioenergetic interaction”. When I tried to do the same thing with him as with the Berlin “Colleague”, I asked me to write a mathematical expression for this interaction and describe its main physical properties - the chairman of Filippov sharply shut me up. As a result, the pathologist defended his degree. From these observations it follows that pseudoscience exists as an objective phenomenon given to us in sensations. For Mr. The Minister, I recall that in the wounds there is a commission to combat pseudoscience. If there, from his point of view, they are busy with nonsense - let him say so.

Or more: “The essence of the claims to my work is formulated in the collective letter of the group of“ Liberal Scientists ”.

The letter was signed by 24 academicians and members of the Russian Academy of Sciences - members of the Club July 1. Mr. Medinsky is familiar with them all personally to testify to their political views? I doubt. I have the honor of being personally familiar with a quarter of the signatories of this list, but practically with any of them I did not discuss “politics”. So why does the author put the stigma of the "liberals" on academics? And this is the same style of thinking that in his “dissertation”: liberals do not like Medinsky, which means that everyone who does not like Medinsky is liberals. All liberals are mistaken. It follows that everyone who does not love Medinsky is mistaken because they are liberals. Somewhere we have already read it. Well, yes: all the cats are mortal, therefore, everyone who is mortal is cats. All cats are stripes. Socrates is mortal, therefore, he is a strip.

It is important to emphasize here that Mr. Medinsky, attributing to the “liberal scientists” the desire to “burn any other opinions”, confuses two things: freedom of thought and the need for criticism. You can’t forbid anyone to write and say that the moon is made of Dutch cheese. But exactly for the same reason, everyone else is free to mock the one who preaches the theory of the cheese moon, and publicly declare it unscientific. The freedom of criticism of error is exactly the same freedom that freedom to be mistaken.

And then the question is already raised this way: does the community of astronomers have the right not to include the supporter of the theory of the cheese moon in their ranks? It is obvious that the freedom of astronomers from communicating with those who believe that the moon is made of Dutch cheese is the same freedom as freedom to devote its life to the study of lunar cheese.

The Minister is in vain trying to blame the members of the “Club July 1”, and the “liberal public” is wider - in an attempt to introduce “the ban on thinking”. Yes, think of your health in the magazine, God forgive, “expert”, on the pages of publications publishing horoscopes, advertising homeopathy and articles about the dangers of GMOs.

The minister did not understand that he was charged with not the ideological coloring of his thoughts and not a kind of understanding of Russia's interests. He is charged with very specific things listed by points. In particular, this is illiteracy (he has a German humanist, the dissertation does not distinguish the Russian language from the Church Slavonic language, he does not know the Arabs of the Pyrenee Peninsula, the Italian clergy of the 16th century knows the teaching of linguistic families), this is a methodology (serious use as sources of anti -Semitan opus O. Platonov and School essays), this is mechanical copying of the bibliography along with recognition errors, ignorance of the source language and funny errors in the conclusions associated with the inability to turn to the original.

After the crackling demagogy that “I see so” and that “liberals are prohibited”, there were no answers to the questions posed in the statement.

To which the minister "forgot" to answer in his article:

• Where did the five monographs of Medinsky disappeared, indicated in the "university" version of the abstract? Did they exist or not? Let me remind you that the New Gazeta made a request to the book chamber, and they answered that such monographs in Russia were not published.

• Why did Mr. Medinsky refer to non-existent article No. 10 in the list of his publications if she never released?

• Why are all (!) The remaining 9 articles, false bibliographic data are given - the wrong years of publication, magazine numbers, page numbers?

• Why was the abstract changed after the defense?

• Why are one non -existent monograph and one non -existent article in the Vakov version of the abstract?

• Why does Mr. Medinsky give a false weekend in the Vakov version of the abstract of 6 out of 9 articles?

Let me remind you that the presence of Vakov articles and the message of the correct data on published articles and books is one of the necessary requirements for dissertations. His violations are enough to deprive the degree.

“Ideas and myths are also facts,” the minister writes. And let me find out: missing books and article No. 10 is a myth or a fact? And is it possible to award the degree for mythical monographs and articles?

It is very easy to stick to the public with pseudo -philosophical reasoning in the spirit of the unheated works of Pyrrhone on the topic “Is there a truth?”. It is much more difficult to answer the question: "Is there a monograph?" And the minister Medinsky has not yet been able to do this.