Disadvantages fly to the clouds

The Disadman of the University of Belgorod defended his doctoral dissertation by Vladimir Medinsky. Report "Medusa"

The dissent of the Belgorod State University recognized the dissertation of the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky who meets all the necessary requirements and recommended not to deprive him of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Of the 22 members 19 supported this decision, three more abstained. Thus, the disservation voted against the statement of three scientists who indicated actual and methodological errors in the work of Medinsky, borrowing and the lack of mandatory publications. At the request of Medusa, Belgorod journalist Igor Ermolenko tells how the meeting took place.

The insulting tone of the statement

“Before responding to the statement of Kozlyakov, Yerusalimsky and Babitsky , it should be noted the insulting tone of this document that has nothing to do with scientific discussion,” began the meeting secretary of the Council, professor of the University of Belgorod Sergey Bogdanov. As an example, he cited a phrase from the statement that “geographical knowledge of V.R. Medinsky, apparently, is limping even by the standards of the first year of the Faculty of History, or even the graduation class of secondary school. ” Thus, the authors commented on a quote from the dissertation of Medinsky, where he writes that Rurik was not from Denmark, but from Scandinavia. Despite the “offensive tone”, the Council still did not reject the application.

The draft conclusion was pre -prepared by the commission of the dissocry, consisting of several of its participants. At the meeting, Bogdanov read out this document: the commission decided that the dissertation of Medinsky “covers all the tasks and set goals, meets all the requirements”, and “borrowings without exile cannot be proof of plagiarism”. The commission and claims to the scientific approach of Medinsky, which considers the main measure of the truth and reliability of historical labor, rejected the commission and claims of the national interests of Russia. Bogdanov explained that "elements of tendencies do not replace scientificity." The requirements of the applicants to deprive the author of the dissertation by the degree were recognized as unreasonable.

"He is a great man!"

After Bogdanov ceased to read the commission’s conclusion, members of the dissocry began to perform. Each speaker was taken for three minutes. Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Shilov said that the dissertation of Medinsky "solves a major scientific problem." “Of course, there may be flaws in it. But if we put advantages and disadvantages on the scales, then the latter will fly into the clouds, ”Shilov said. The historian also trampled the applicants for a disrespectful tone. “Vladimir Medinsky is a famous person, and when critics do not have enough arguments against such opponents, they begin to use abusive words and insults,” the scientist was indignant.

Professor of philosophy Pavel Olkhov supported Sergei Bogdanov and said that the “ideological question” should generally be removed from the agenda of the meeting, because it has practical value for science and the country. Historian Alexander Maslennikov about Medinsky and his work spoke directly: “It is not our business to discuss how he wrote his ten scientific works and a dissertation, he is a great man!”

Amendments. Initially, in the article, the words of Alexander Maslennikov were attributed to Pavel Olkhov. We apologize to the readers.

The missing monograph

The applicants at the meeting were represented by an employee of the Dissernet project Andrei Zazakin. He began his speech by the fact that, as a physicist, he could not comment on the advantages of history, but he would like to pay attention to the formal part. Zazakin reminded the Council that to protect the doctoral, it was necessary to have a certain number of scientific publications, and although Medinsky indicated their names when submitting an application to the Higher Attestation Commission, no one in the eyes of some works did not see. In the first version of the abstract, the applicant indicated five monographs, but then submitted a new version, where only one remained.

Later, the adviser to the minister Mikhail Myagkov with a small book came to the rostrum. He explained that this is the scientific monograph of Medinsky. Zayakin got up from his place and went to the soft - he wanted to look at the book, but he resisted. The co -founder of Dissernet immediately called the monograph a fake. He nevertheless managed to take possession of the book, carried him to his place and began to take pictures of the turn. After the meeting, he said that the book was printed recently. “The book is a poorly redesigned and poorly cleaned text of the dissertation of Medinsky, which is confirmed on several pages, where the work is called the dissertation,” said Zazakin.

19 votes for, three abstained

“I understood who will be the only one who will not support the Council’s decision,” Natalya Brosova, Doctor of Philosophy, began his speech. She indicated that the methodology and logic of scientific work was not maintained in the work, that the author did not master the skills of scientific presentation, in contrast to journalism. “The dissertation of Medinsky is a cognitive and entertaining fiction, but nothing more,” the philosopher finished. Despite the strict rebuilding, Natalya Rosova did not vote against the conclusion of the commission, but simply refrained.

19 of the 22 members of the dissertation council supported the conclusion of the commission of the dissocry and the scientific honor of Vladimir Medinsky. Nobody spoke out against this decision - even the historian Vitaly Penska decided to refrain, who back in 2012 defeated the dissertation in the article with the heading “without the skills of a historian” . The same decision was made by the beginner of the dissertation council Alexander Nefedkin. All three abstained refused to speak with reporters.

After the meeting, Medinsky representative announced the defeat of the applicants and shared his opinion about their true motives. “Today we have 2017, there are sanctions against Russia, an information war against the state. And a person with his dissertation finds the origins of this information war, which was conducted against our Russia from the XV, XVI and XVII centuries. In other words, a political order is visible here this statement that appeared today, ”said soft.

Igor Ermolenko, Belgorod