About the analysis of the scientist

On the pages of our newspaper, the pseudo -scientific creations of the "antinormanists" have repeatedly analyzed. In his new article, the Medievist historian Oleg Gubarev reflects on the phenomenon of “Erzats-Nauki”, which shows himself violently on sites and in magazines. Taking this occasion, we note that in 2018, in 2018, under the scientific editorship and with the extensive comments of Oleg Lvovich, the book of Andrei Amalrik “Normans and Kievan Rus” was published in 2018.

In the Trav-hunger, I already wrote [2] about the problem of a split between the scientific community of medical historians and society-in particular, people interested in history, but not owning a scientific method and not seeing the difference between scientific monograph and books in bright covers under sensation headings.

The shaft of such literature is growing alarming by pace. However, there is another phenomenon that occupies an intermediate position between Fricice Fricks, like A. T. Fomenko, V. A. Chudinov, A. A. Tunyaev and others. These are scientific works performed at a low scientific level, what I call “ Erzats-Nauka ” in my publications [3], and A.E. Musin called “scientific provincialism”. These works cannot be attributed to pseudoscience, since outwardly it is difficult to distinguish from full scientific works. In Russian medievalism, these are mainly the work of antinorman historians.

In connection with the overgrown number of ersatz-scientific dissertations, articles in non-core and peripheral publications that do not meet the requirements of a qualitative scientific research, in my opinion, a serious ethical problem arose. In Lipetsk, anti -Normanists regularly participate in Bartenev readings, the organizing committee of which includes the most famous antinormanist Vyacheslav Fomin, and use this site to publish their “hypotheses”. In the same place, in Lipetsk, the main citadel of antinormanism, a magazine began to be released, which seemed to be not directly related to mediastism, called “Humanitarian Studies of Central Russia”, whose editorial is included the same V. V. Fomin and “Swedish historian” by Lidia Grot.

The scientific magazine “Historical Format”, which is frankly antinormanist in nature, began to be released on the basis of crowdfunding. In fact, authors are printed in it whose work does not accept serious scientific publications for publication and who have so far published their opuses on the infamous website of the anti -Normat.ru antinormat.ru.

Antinormanists use any opportunity to acquire a scientific status for their opuses. Separate articles of anti-Normanists appear in the Rusin magazine, since his editorial staff includes antinormanist V.I. Merkulov, who is at the DNA genealogy Academy, created by False Anatoly Kleosov [4]. (I note that to the honor of the magazine the clear majority of publications was still made at a high professional level.) The whole television channel “REN TV” has long been open to sensational “discoveries” of any freaks that tell inexperienced viewers about one false sensation after another. Recently, this kind of transfers sometimes appear on the “Culture” television channel [5], which also causes anxiety.

But there is another surprise: in such a journal as the “historical format”, the composition of the editorial office, in addition to obvious anti -Normanists, includes and not hesitate to publish their work authors of quite professional scientific research. Of course, to a certain extent, such authors can be justified by the fact that they do not understand the level of publications that are not related to the profile of their scientific interests. However, such illegibility causes some bewilderment. Are the authors whose work will be happy to publish any specialized scientific journal, do not see the difference where and with whom to publish their articles nearby?

Performing a huge work to identify freaks from the science of Dissernet in this case is powerless, since there are no plagiarism in the published materials and they formally meet all the requirements for the scientific publication.

The fact that the authors who could easily publish their work in any scientific historical collection chose to be published in a dubious journal, involuntarily suggests that they are in solidarity with the general direction of the published magazine and do not see anything terrible in the fact that their work will appear next to articles prepared at a very low scientific level.

Of course, the freedom of printing and the freedom of scientific thought requires the lack of censorship, and we do not propose to impose a ban on the publication of the works of real freaks and folk historians. But the historical community should speak more actively on this topic. Otherwise, is it worth it to be surprised when, during the discussions on historical topics, a person from the street asks the question: “You say that the anti -Normanists are not right, that their“ hypotheses ”are unscientific, but here L.P. Grot is a candidate of science, V. I. Merkulov is a candidate of sciences, and V.V. Fomin is a doctor of science. Well, they just assigned scientists to them? "

It should be noted that the antinormanists are surprisingly active and fertile and act as a united front: they quote each other, refer to each other, and support each other. That is, according to their own confessions, they lead against the rest of the historical scientific community “Information War”. And the medical scientists-historians and archaeologists, being unanimous in the main issues already resolved by the scientific community, diverge in the approach to specific problems, and discusses and disputes among themselves.

This has been done since the 19th century, and this allows antinormanists to tear out of the works of historians and archaeologists, on which they hang the Normanist label, separate quotes and group them in support of their “hypotheses”. All their "research" are built on historiography - they do not conduct independent research work. After all, one cannot consider an attempt to understand the history of the 9th century with the help of sources of the XVI - XVIII centuries, using as a universal board of the statement that “folk traditions” have been preserved in them about the distant past [6] .

The works of antinormanists modern historians and archaeologists are simply trying to ignore it if possible. Actually, in the same way, the scientific community ignored the “works” of mathematician A. T. Fomenko, until the support of its “new chronology” began to grow like a snowball and in popularity to compete with real historical science.

On the one hand, it is hardly possible to condemn the authors published next to the articles of the low scientific level. After all, their articles have been fulfilled as quite serious scientific research, are of significant scientific interest and there can be no complaints about their quality! But, on the other hand, the ethics of science would have to tell such authors that it is hardly worth being published in illegible publications. After all, they will not publish their work next to the articles of A. T. Fomenko or V. A. Chudinov or next to the publications about the Veles Book.

At the same time, the publication in the anti -Normal journal can reveal the real position of the historian, which he does not want to openly declare. I will give an example. In a respected historical and archaeological scientific journal Stratum Plus, an article by S. V. Tomsinsky “Leningrad Neonormanism: Sources and Results” was published [7]. In this publication, the author took as if the detached position of the historian-historiographer, who critically analyzes the phenomenon, designated by him as “Leningrad Neonormanism”.

After the discussion on the pages of the same magazine and articles by N. I. Platonova, who opposed the concept of Tomsinsky in the collection “Ex Ungue Leonem” by the 90th anniversary of L. S. Klein, the irritated answer of Tomsinsky to the article Platonova was printed precisely in the antinorman journal “Historical Format” [8]. Which allowed to fully understand the author’s position of the author, not declared openly. We paraphrase the well -known saying: “Tell me, in which scientific publication you are published, and I will tell you what positions you adhere to one or another matter!”

Of course, the publication in the journal, where one article, performed at a low scientific level, has slipped in the magazine, not at all detracted from the dignity of the author, publishing his work in this journal. But when the article is published in a journal, which has a well -defined specified direction and leading a certain editorial policy for a long time, this is a completely different matter. The publication in such a publication can be understood so that the author is in solidarity with this editorial program or, at least, does not see anything odious in it.

Ethics in science, as it seems to me, is far from abstract, and everyone determines its boundaries for himself. But there is a completely established general idea of ​​her. To observe its unwritten requirements and to show some intelligibility in choosing an publication to publish its works, it seems to me, is very desirable.

Oleg Gubarev

1. TRV-SCIENCE.ru/TAG/normanizm/
2. On the situation of an independent researcher in modern media // TRV-hunger, Hyde Park online, February 16, 2017.
3. Once again about the Erzats-huke in mediastics // Trv-hunger. No. 236 dated August 29, 2017.
4. Balanovskaya E.V., Borinskaya S. A., Buzhilova A.P., Dybo A.V., Klein L. S. et al. DNA-demagogy Anatoly Kleosov // Trv-hunger. No. 170 of January 13, 2015.
5. Kolosnitsyn P. The temples are silent, and the liars say // TRV-hobby. No. 228 of May 9, 2017.
6. Melnikova E. A. Renaissance of the Middle Ages? Reflections on myth -making in modern historical science // Homeland. 2009. No. 3, 5.
7. Tomsinsky S.V. Leningrad neoonormanism: origins and results // Stratum Plus. 2014. No. 5.
8. Tomsinsky S. V. What should be expected: again about the same (regarding the Leningrad Neonormanism and Articles by N. I. Platonova) // Historical format. 2018. No. 3-4 (2017).