Theoretical physicist, Professor, corresponding member of RAS Alexander Belavin told Open Russia, why he signed a letter demanding the return of the dissertation of the Minister of culture Vladimir Medinsky on the consideration of the academic Council of the Ural Federal University and why in this situation the fate of Russian science
— History with a dissertation Medinsky is not just a question of historical science, but about science itself.
If you remember our not very old history, 1920-1930-ies, such pseudoscientific approach first arose in history. Then got to biology: there is pseudobiology Trofim Lysenko, genetics defeated. Tried to destroy even the physics — such thoughts were Stalin after the war. It stopped, but not because he changed his mind and realized that the first goal of science is to explain the truth, but only because then he would have lost weapons and the atomic bomb. We have a memory of where it leads to: further there is a desire to intervene in all other Sciences. That is why scientists need to show solidarity in the resistance to attempts to apply pseudo-scientific approach in any field.
I’m a physicist, not a historian, but when Medina says that people who doubt the feat of 28 Panfilov is “down and out filth”, for me it all speaks to the fact that it costs and as the Minister of culture, and as a scientist: instead of trying to figure out this question, he treats it only in terms of “interests of Russia”. The discussion in this form, was the story of the Panfilov fictional or not, blasphemous and unscientific.
Our appeal, it should be noted, is not directed against the Medina. It refers to the total obscurantist tendencies, and the Minister simply goes into the stream of what is happening lately. For example, the establishment of a monument to Ivan the terrible. Medinsky at the opening ceremony, eagle has said that “Ivan IV the terrible — one of the most controversial and yet the outstanding figures of the Russian history”. And it certainly is. Hitler, too, an outstanding figure of history and the German people. But the man who wanted to erect a monument to Hitler, would have faced big problems and maybe even behind bars. So one thing to explore this remarkable contradictory figure, quite another to put monuments to him. But Medina believes that this is acceptable.
To deal with the defenders of pseudoscience, of course, is not desirable, but necessary. For example, film Director Nikita Mikhalkov criticized the understanding of the role of the Soros Foundation for Russian science in the 1990-ies. He has a program “Besogon” and he said that the activities of the Soros Foundation in 1990-ies was almost subversive, a spy. Supposedly his activities he does not want to help Russian scientists, Russian science. This, of course, a monstrous lie. In 1990-e years have left the country would be many of the few remaining scientists, if not the 500 dollars that Soros gave to everyone, so that they could do science, and their families are not in poverty.
This is not a special case but only one example of the trend. In the life of our country came the troubled times. There are people who understand the importance of such things as culture, science, and they must resist the onset of this obscurantism.
