When was it better to do science in Russia?

Whose point of view I fully share, perhaps it is superfluous to say.

And reigns over our side -
The Eye is bad, my friend, but the hour is bad.

And all we have, my friend, beauty-
That two blonde, along the back, braids,
Two uncompressed, in the field, stripes.

And then, so
that all the people don't hang around the groves in one year-
That's why we have
a Green, green wine.

And in the villages-willows - trees
And weeping-grass, gap-grass...

You can't bear the Russian burden.
-"Come in, good sir!"

Marina Tsvetaeva (1917)

Therefore ,I do NOT want to argue with the statements that "under the leadership of Stalin, the war was won", IT is DISGUSTING.

It is necessary to argue, it is necessary to prove and convince. Until the age of 17 and for a long time after, they also didn't want to argue, although they could: it was disgusting. If this is not done, justice itself, if it is restored, will not be very soon. Unfortunately, until now, the understanding of a person's responsibility to himself and to his time does not come to mind, and the belief remains that one in the field is not a warrior. As Nietzsche bequeathed to the thinking man, to draw many and many away from the herd-that's what you came for.

The dispute in this section has indeed entered a "suffocating phase".

And as for military history, the tradition of lying is too great.
Just the other day, a friend of mine came to me with a documentary that was dug up somewhere (whether it was torn off from TV, or from somewhere else, but quite recent!!!). In this film, based on documentary evidence (!), it was again proved that the Poles in Katyn were shot by the Germans. And this was after documents were opened in 1990 or 1991 and it was officially recognized that Polish officers were shot on orders from the Kremlin (I don't remember the details). Therefore ,I do NOT want to argue with the statements that "under the leadership of Stalin, the war was won", IT is DISGUSTING.

With Katyn, not everything is so clear. There, apparently, there were several shootings - both ours and the Germans tried (more than one burial).
The documents were "discovered" in 1992, but soon it was proved that the paper about the execution signed by Beria and Stalin was a fake. But the official view has remained unchanged since then.

Yes, they went to the Pampas with the theme...Then,probably, there will be Someone in Russia to live well" and vice versa.Hang a lock on the topic.It's not ours!

Tentator, we are obviously people of different ideological beliefs. But I appeal to your discretion: an entomological forum is not a place for political arguments. In the meantime, it is you, contrary to your own claim that you are sorry for your time on this argument, who artfully throw firewood on the fire, not letting it go out. Apparently, you are convinced that you are right - that's good! You don't need to prove anything to yourself or your supporters, and believe me, you can't convince, for example, such a "commie fanatic" as me. At the same time, please note that I personally, stating my commitment to the views that are 90% (I emphasize, 90, not 100!) opposite to yours, did not speak out on the substance of the dispute and, including, on the specific content of your posts. Stop responding to what you think are erroneous statements, and the argument will subside by itself. And if you can't wait to finish off the commies without mercy, then please go to another forum to implement this goal. There must be enough of them. And all participants of this entomological forum, regardless of their political preferences and yours, will still be very grateful to you for a reasoned point of view on both theoretical and practical issues of entomology.
Sincerely, V. Titov.

I'm sorry, but I didn't start this argument and I didn't organize the survey. But I do not intend to remain silent in response to false and harmful statements, especially those addressed to me. Any attempts to understand the reasons for the decline in modern Russian science and culture in general will invariably run into many of the topics raised here. I'll happily stop wasting my time, but I don't know how to delete my account.

But now it is quite clear what caused the revolution in the 17th. If the intelligentsia was represented by such boring characters as Tentetor, filled with their own significance and intelligence, and considering the rest as cattle (even if the rest were such), then it is not surprising.

> You, too, when you speak of a "huge (qualitative) leap", do not mean Soviet art criticism.

By a qualitative leap, I mean the arrival of education to the masses + the availability of science to the masses. This is something that tsarist Russia could not (did not have time) to do. Of course, education was minimal and primitive (reading-addition). Of course, the average level of science has fallen below the baseboard, mediocre people have rushed to science, especially in the humanities. But mass education, in my opinion, laid the foundations for the country's industrialization and further (post-war) development. For some reason, Soviet school education was considered one of the best in the world. In high-tech areas (weapons, cosmonautics), the USSR was for a long time ahead of the entire planet, or at least not far behind (at least until the 80s). And the outflow of brains in the 90s could not have happened if these brains did not exist.

> I know that I am harsh, but I am harsh in arguments on fundamental issues - in responses to sharpness and demagoguery.

More self-control. Being nervous doesn't make you look good, even if you're highly intelligent.

> You artificially refine history, or human life doesn't matter to you. The latter is wild for me.

Human life is not an absolute value in itself. I don't see anything shameful or terrible in giving your life for your beliefs and ideals (for your country, for your loved ones, etc.) or taking the life of an enemy.

> The calculation was stupidly simple. Under the treaty of ' 39, Germany and the USSR divided Eastern Europe between them.

You just opened my eyes to history. You asked why a weak, small, barely recovered Germany was able to inflict such damage on the USSR. I told you that I was never weak or barely recovered. There were also reasons (erroneous and incompetent - I will clarify for you) why Stalin did not prepare for an attack from Germany. But there were reasons for this. You've taken the conversation back to the devil knows where, and you're making new claims. Clever.

There is no need to remove the topic anywhere. Those who don't want to participate don't participate. Those who do not have the will and poise to discuss problematic and ambiguous issues calmly - well, these are the problems of this person, let them learn. Cover and remove - the easiest way.

I'm sorry, but I didn't start this argument and I didn't organize the survey. But I do not intend to remain silent in response to false and harmful statements, especially those addressed to me. Any attempts to understand the reasons for the decline in modern Russian science and culture in general will invariably run into many of the topics raised here. I'll happily stop wasting my time, but I don't know how to delete my account.

You don't need to delete anything . It's just not worth continuing the argument if it's obvious that it's reaching a dead end. And at the same time, its content is moving further and further away from the forum's theme.

You don't need to delete anything . It's just not worth continuing the argument if it's obvious that it's reaching a dead end. And at the same time, its content is moving further and further away from the forum's theme.

That's what I mean.Ladushki also expressed their opinion in the survey.And to breed demagoguery on the topics of WWII, who, when and why started-COCKROACHES ARE NOT DIVIDED!Here it will already be both in the subject and in our way.

As long as my credentials haven't been deleted yet, I'll respond to your replies to my address.

It's just not worth continuing the argument if it's obvious that it's reaching a dead end.

But why are you saying this to me? Is it because "we are obviously people of different ideological beliefs"? It's not fair or anything. I am also surprised by passers-by who are not interested or important in the topic of discussion, but who demand to close it without fail. Strange behavior.

By a qualitative leap, I mean the arrival of education to the masses + the availability of science for the masses.

Well, that's still not true. Science for the masses was quite accessible even before the revolution, but another thing is that, unlike in Soviet times, only a truly gifted person could get into science (and in Soviet times, as a rule, the opposite is true). Once again, I advise you to read the autobiography of the greatest sociologist of the 20th century, Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin, which is most interesting outside of this conversation. Then you will know that he was born in the wild wilderness on the periphery of the Russian Empire – in Komi. His mother died early, and with his drunken father and brother, he wandered through the villages and villages, laboring for coinage. In one of these villages, an exam for a second-level school was held, in which anyone could take part (!). After listening to the questions and finding them very easy, 10-year-old Sorokin entered the school and for 3 years of study constantly received a scholarship of 5 rubles, which paid for accommodation and board. After finishing school, he was sent to a teacher's seminary in the Kostroma province, then entered an evening school in St. Petersburg, then the Bekhterev Psychoneurological Institute, and then the Imperial University. And this is despite the fact that he constantly campaigned against the current government and was arrested for this (he describes the tsarist prisons very curiously, I advise you to read). Then he was a member of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, secretary to the Minister-Chairman of the Provisional Government. Then Lenin called him Enemy No. 1, sentenced him to be shot and expelled from Russia in 1922. Then he became the founder and head of the departments of sociology in many universities around the world, the head of the research center at Harvard. His work "Social and Cultural Dynamics" is still considered the most outstanding work in the field of sociology ever written. This is in brief words the life path of a boy from the masses. Let's not mention Lomonosov any further, it's too banal. For example, the first Russian professor of medicine, K. I. Shchepin, is the son of a peasant. N. I. Vavilov, who became a professor at Saratov University in 1911 at the age of 24, and his brother are the grandchildren of a serf peasant. I. P. Pavlov, an elder of physiologists of the world, a Nobel Prize winner, is the son of a Ryazan priest.E. Vvedensky, a disciple of Sechenov , is the son of a Vologda priest, etc. Education and science are still different things. Moreover, education in Soviet Russia was poor. School education-yes, it is considered good because of the knowledge model of education. Only knowledge is not enough to cram into a child's head, you still need to teach them to use them, you need to teach them to think, and in an original way, but this is already unprofitable for totalitarian systems, and graduates of Soviet schools usually did not know how to use their extensive knowledge. Facts, figures, rules, and theorems that are shoved into your head are very unreliable things in themselves, and they disappear at lightning speed after the final exams if they are not supported by constant use and work of thought. So it turns out that a third of Russians, many of whom studied in the USSR, and those who are younger study with the same teachers who taught their parents in the same knowledge model, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth (http://www.compulenta.ru/316313/). And in general, even you admit that the average level of science has fallen below the baseboard, mediocre people have rushed to science. What else is there to talk about? Yes, there was cosmonautics, no one disputes. We have already written to you about Koroleva and Kurchatov.

Being nervous doesn't make you feel good

Well, you know, rudeness doesn't make anyone happy either.

You just opened my eyes to history. You asked why a weak, small, barely recovered Germany was able to inflict such damage on the USSR. I told you that I was never weak or barely recovered. There were also reasons (erroneous and incompetent - I will clarify for you) why Stalin did not prepare for an attack from Germany. But there were reasons for this.

Weak-not weak-these are words hanging in the air. Not weak relative to what? Well, obviously, relative to your opponent. You talk about the American investment in German industry, which has made it strong. I asked you a question: how do these infusions relate to the looting of landlords, factory owners, the aristocracy and the peasantry in Russia, whose population is at least 2.5 times larger (and even more so before the terror and repression) than the population of Germany? Further, if it is obvious to you that the conduct of war is erroneous and incompetent, then why do you so persistently deny the results of modern calculations of war victims and seek to shift the blame for them entirely to Nazi Germany?

Human life is not an absolute value in itself. I don't see anything shameful or terrible in giving your life for your beliefs and ideals (for your country, for your loved ones, etc.) or taking the life of an enemy.

Well, if for you tens of millions of people who wanted to be human beings and live in a free country, who became victims of terror and repression, are enemies, and there is nothing terrible in taking their lives for you, then I have nothing to talk about with you at all.

So it turns out that a third of Russians, many of whom studied in the USSR, and those who are younger study with the same teachers who taught their parents in the same knowledge model, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth (http://www.compulenta.ru/316313/).

Well, they didn't say anything about the Europeans? The fact that 28% of Russians and 27% of Europeans, respectively, believe that it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth indicates either a really low level of education, or that respondents are ready to apply the theory of relativity at every opportunity.

 
Does it turn out that the development of cosmonautics and the creation of nuclear weapons is the merit of the "bloody gebni" ??? When did they manage that??? They only did shootings!!!

Well, "not to Yandex. Checkout". There is, there is a "bloody gabni" merit in the creation of our cosmonautics, etc., etc.!!! The Queen was not finished off (and Bartini and Tupolev and thousands of others like him! And they could have finished it off. Let's thank them for this...

Read "Tupolev sharaga", it is on lib.ru there is one.

  
But why are you saying this to me? Is it because "we are obviously people of different ideological beliefs"? It's not fair or anything. I am also surprised by passers-by who are not interested or important in the topic of discussion, but who demand to close it without fail. Strange behavior.

My appeal to stop a useless and dangerous dispute for the unity of forum members, the content of which has nothing to do with the topic of the forum, is addressed to all participants, including the moderator. Didn't you notice that? Personally, I singled you out because I considered you, despite the diametric opposition of our ideological views, one of the most prudent and authoritative participants, able to stop in time and stop a discussion that borders on "witch-catching" and is on the verge of mutual insults. Unfortunately, I was wrong about you.
I don't find my behavior strange. What is so strange about trying to stop an incipient quarrel in your company, among friends, buddies, close (even virtual) acquaintances?

Moreover, education in Soviet Russia was poor.

And where was it better, in the civilized West?! In this discussion, the topic of mass brain drain from the USSR (Russia) in the Soviet and early post-Soviet times has already been raised. Where did these brains, which are in demand in the best Western scientific institutions, come from, given the poor education in the USSR? And you didn't go to school yourself, not with home tutors, I suppose?" You don't have to answer these questions, they are rhetorical.

if it is obvious to you that the conduct of war is erroneous and incompetent, then why do you so persistently deny the results of modern calculations of war victims and seek to shift the entire blame for them to Nazi Germany?

The fallacy of waging war?! I hope you have just expressed yourself badly, referring to the fallacy of a number of tactical and strategic moves of the Soviet command? If we take your statement literally, then if the war itself was a mistake, then it should not have been fought at all and should have surrendered to the mercy of Nazi Germany? If you really think so, then, to use your terminology, I have nothing to talk about with you at all.
And more. I agree that if mistakes had not been made in the tactics and strategy of military operations, the losses of our Homeland could have been less. But the blame for the consequences of war, for its victims, always lies entirely with the aggressor. And you, it seems, are ready to divide it between Nazi Germany and its allies (on the one hand), who attacked our country, and the USSR? The position is familiar, but it doesn't make it any less unacceptable for me.

Well, if for you tens of millions of people who wanted to be human beings and live in a free country, who became victims of terror and repression, are enemies, and there is nothing terrible in taking their lives for you, then I have nothing to talk about with you at all.

It seems that you are either not paying attention to your opponents ' posts, or...(I don't want to press charges). It meant something completely different, well, read it again!
"Human life is not an absolute value in itself. I don't see anything shameful or terrible in giving your life for your beliefs and ideals (for your country, for your loved ones, etc.) or taking the life of an enemy."
Does Salix claim that the victims of the repressions of the 30s and 40s are also enemies for it?! Well, what kind of other people are you speculating about?! Well, it doesn't work, you can't read between the lines, so don't do it! Moreover, there is no hidden meaning in the statement of Salix. Everything is obvious and for me, for example, indisputable: to take the life of the enemy, defending the independence of their homeland, the lives of their loved ones, is not only not shameful, but also absolutely justified.
I don't think it makes sense to ask you to stop again. You've already dragged me into a substantive argument.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 05/23/2008 23: 16

I'm sorry, but I didn't start this argument and I didn't organize the survey. But I do not intend to remain silent in response to false and harmful statements, especially those addressed to me. Any attempts to understand the reasons for the decline in modern Russian science and culture in general will invariably run into many of the topics raised here. I'll happily stop wasting my time, but I don't know how to delete my account.

I don't understand anything. The author of this topic is Tentator.

Apparently, this is due to the fact that the moderator moved here earlier messages from the faunal topic, where, in fact, this dispute originated. And I created this topic with the survey in order to divert an extraneous discussion from the long-suffering faunalism.

I don't find my behavior strange. What is so strange about trying to stop an incipient quarrel in your company, among friends, buddies, close (even virtual) acquaintances?

Dmitrich, I admire the subtlety of your demagogy. You're a lawyer, aren't you?" I'm sorry, but in my opinion, although in words you call for an end to this dispute, in fact you support it in every possible way.

I hope you just misspelled it

Don't get your hopes up -- you know exactly what I mean. If I thought that Russia should not have fought the Nazis, I would not be living in it now. Responsibility for the victims of the war lies both with the aggressor and with the resistance command, which had the means to make do with less losses, but did not want or could not use them. Let's take the extreme (of course, this was not the case, but if you do not understand, then we will resort to the Strugatsky rule "to understand is to simplify"): the tactic of lining up all the inhabitants of the country at the front and winning by running out of ammunition - wouldn't that be a crime?

It seems that you are either not paying attention to your opponents ' posts,

It's more like you're being inattentive. General beautiful phrases are not appropriate here, we are talking about specific things. "I don't see anything shameful or terrible in giving your life for your beliefs" - who is this about? about the heroes of the Patriotic War or the victims of repression? If it's about heroes, what are their beliefs? They had a love for the Motherland. Yes, they wanted to give their lives for their Homeland, and no one disputes the "shamelessness" of this desire. If we are talking about victims of repression, who among them voluntarily wanted to give their lives to Comrade Stalin? In this sense, the pompous phrase sounds simply blasphemous mockery. "Or take the life of an enemy" - again, what enemy? a German occupier, or a peasant who wanted to save his children from starvation, or a scientist who wanted to think the way he wanted to think, not the right way? Human life is an absolute value. This is the presumption of every civilized person.

About education - I will answer. It is the brains that are "leaking", not the bags full of knowledge. You see, students are always divided into three categories: good boys, daredevils and "neither this nor that". As a rule, good boys and "out of the blue" turn out to be people who please the system. Daredevils are persistently broken, and if it turns out, then with a crunch and forever. And if it doesn't work out, then either people with a capital letter or scum come out. It all depends on what the child's childhood was overshadowed by, what kind of example was next. This division is always preserved, I don't know for what reasons (temperament or something?). And so, no matter how rigid the system of upbringing and education in a totalitarian state may be, there will always be people who are brave, intelligent and original. The remedy is simple, but you can't burn all the books, and you can't shoot all the people who don't look like others.
What happens in Europe, the United States, or China worries me much less than what happens in the country where I was born. The reasons for the decline of morals are different in Europe and Russia. The latter was isolated from the world for a long time and lived by completely different laws. If someone is wondering why so many people in Europe believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then read, for example, Ortega y Gasset's "Revolt of the Masses". Russia is now like an unintelligent child, drawn to all sorts of bright trash, so the reasons for the "European" decline in our country are layered on the consequences of the decline of the "Soviet", sometimes giving rise to completely ugly consequences.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/24/2008 01: 16

Dmitrich essentially answered for me. Thanks to him for this, I will not dwell on the details, well, them.

As soon as they begin to create justice: to imprison communists and anti-monarchists with all severity, so the 30s will seem like a period of carefree calm.

"If we apply your methods — how will we differ from you?" Pastor Schlag, "Seventeen Moments of Spring".

The results of the survey, in my opinion, are quite revealing. The "post-17" period was not helped even by the optimistic wording, in general, it is surprising that there were those who voted for it. A confident second place in pre-revolutionary Russia is quite understandable and logical. The period of "mature socialism" is leading by a good margin - and this is despite the fact that the forum contingent as a whole is young enough to be universally accused of "nostalgia" and ideological blindness. It is also symptomatic that no one voted at all for the long-lasting post-perestroika segment... There are only two pessimists who chose "always bad". The last most neutral item, as it seems to me, is the average in popularity, I voted for it. Although if I had to choose a hard either-or, I would choose "mature socialism" (the repressions are already over, but the devastation has not yet begun).

As soon as they begin to create justice: to imprison communists and anti-monarchists with all severity, so the 30s will seem like a period of carefree calm.

"If we apply your methods — how will we differ from you?" Pastor Schlag, "Seventeen Moments of Spring".

How many people - so many opinions

"The madness of the revolution was the desire to establish virtue on earth. When they want to make people kind, wise, free, abstemious, generous, they inevitably come to the desire to kill them all. " A. France.

As for "after the 17th to the 2nd World War" - as far as I remember, I ventured to vote for this particular item. And I can explain why. But tell me, what period of our biologists ' works are considered classics all over the world? This includes Vernadsky's theory of the biosphere, Vavilov's law of homological series, Chetverikov's foundation of population genetics, Gause's experiments, and Berg's "Nomogenesis" (I don't share Berg's point of view on evolution, but nevertheless...). And then (not suddenly, of course) the Lysenkoism broke out, and our biology turned out to be a very difficult problem. set back decades, if not centuries. In the same period, the Dolysenkov period, we must look for the roots of both the classical synecological works of Sukachev, and the evolutionist works of Schmalhausen, etc. - that is, the works of the war and post-war period.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 05/25/2008 14: 22

But tell me, what period of our biologists ' works are considered classics all over the world? These include Vernadsky's theory of the biosphere, Vavilov's law of homological series, Chetverikov's foundation of population genetics, Gause's experiments, and Berg's Nomogenesis

I'm afraid you don't know the story or don't want to think about it. You see, it is simply impossible to create a teaching about the biosphere in 9 years of a difficult or even impossible life for creativity (and this is how much time has passed since the October Revolution before the release of Vernadsky's Biosphere). And life was hard. Let us recall that in 1921, after the Bolsheviks came to Crimea, Vernadsky was expelled from the university; in 1922, he was arrested by the Cheka on some trumped-up charge; in both cases, V. I. was saved by his former student Semashko. In the same year, Vernadsky and his family emigrated to France, but returned a few years later, being sure of the imminent collapse of Soviet power. He wrote in his diary: "The Bolsheviks are right - there is a struggle going on between capitalism and socialism. Is socialism better than capitalism? What can it give to the masses? Socialism is inevitably the enemy of freedom, culture, freedom of the spirit, and science. The Russian intelligentsia is infected with the insanity of socialism. <...> The foundations and ideals of socialism must be thoroughly examined. They are not scientific. They contradict the freedom of the human person." Or Vavilov, who was fully formed as a scientist before the revolution, in three years in 1920. thanks to the Soviet government formulated the law of homological series? Or did Berg create the concept of nomogenesis in 5 years? Or Chetverikov, the son of a nobleman and a factory owner, an associate professor at pre-revolutionary Moscow University, who was banned from living in Moscow during the Soviet era. All the best in Soviet science was created by old-regime scientists who survived the revolution (sometimes miraculously, like Vernadsky) or their students.

"The madness of the revolution was the desire to establish virtue on earth. When they want to make people kind, wise, free, abstemious, generous, they inevitably come to the desire to kill them all."

Anatole France did not write about this revolution. After all, its real goals became visible literally immediately. To this day, many people in our country still believe that the October Revolution was nothing more than the overthrow of a really stupid and pathetic Provisional Government. In fact, the Constituent Assembly was overthrown, which was supposed to decide on the form of government in Russia and the constitution on an elective basis. Zinaida Gippius in 17 wrote:

Our grandfathers 'impossible dream,
Our heroes' wary sacrifice,
Our prayer with timid lips,
Our hope and sighing-
the Constituent Assembly-
What have we done with it...?

The Bolsheviks won only 23 % of the vote in the Constituent Assembly elections. This did not suit them, they dispersed the meeting and shot thousands of demonstrators who came out in support of the meeting in St. Petersburg and in Moscow. This is not at all like the actions of those who want to "establish virtue on earth". And in general, these Marxists somehow had very little in common with the teachings of Marx-read the recent book by S. Kara-Murza "Marx against the Russian Revolution": http://natahaus.ifolder.ru/6622944. The essence of this revolution is quite obvious: there was a simple seizure of power by experienced bandits; what is the desire to make people kind and wise?

In fact, I understand the aggression of many of my opponents. It looks as if someone is trying to deprive them of the grounds and rights to be proud of their Homeland-the rights and grounds without which a free and civilized person is unthinkable. On the contrary, I only want to draw attention to the falsity of a number of these grounds, which have been planted in the minds of schoolboys, and to the true grounds. D. S. Likhachev (if you forget about the spoons in his glasses and turn to his books) wrote that the plane flies not because it rests its wings on the air,but because it is sucked up. It is necessary not to swell up from the importance of the consciousness of the "nuclear nature" of our country, but to be proud and strive for the heights of spirit achieved by Russian culture, for the ideals of Russian intellectuals. And here it is necessary to put all the dots on the I, to understand with all rigor the contribution and responsibility of a particular era in the development of culture - in order to choose the right ideals and guidelines for future development. Once again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the problems of Russian science today are not limited to funding alone. The same V. I. Vernadsky wrote in his diary in 1918: "It is impossible to postpone the care of the great and eternal until the time when it will be possible for everyone to meet their basic needs. Otherwise it will be too late. We will put material goods in the hands of people whose ideal will be "bread and circuses". Eat, drink, do nothing, enjoy love. It is good to live in the name of what? and for what purpose? We must look for higher ideals. "'Love for humanity' is a small ideal when you live in space."

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/25/2008 16: 18

Yes, I also think that all these people (schools) came out entirely from "before the revolution", but something else may have happened in the 20s (in the 30s they already started to "rot") this allowed Russian biology to sound very noticeable. I myself wonder what.

Well, what happened? There were quite a few scientists at the age of creative flourishing, formed before the revolution. There were works made or conceived before 17 that could not be completed and published in the revolutionary turmoil. The authorities had other problems - the civil war. And the intelligentsia has not yet had time to taste the taste of the new regime, and as it has tried and tried to fight, the repressions have begun. In other words, the intelligentsia was not fought en masse at that time, and there was no conviction in the public consciousness that the old-regime intelligentsia were the enemies of the people. For example, one day the geologist Karpinski was walking through dark unlit Petrograd late at night with a large heavy valise. In a dark corner, a burglar pinned him to the wall and began to take away his valise. Karpinsky immediately realized what was going on: he thinks there is gold in the suitcase, they say the bourgeois is going to hide. I showed the robber the contents of the suitcase-minerals. The robber excused himself and helped carry the heavy suitcase home.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/25/2008 16: 49

[quote=Tentator,25.05.2008 16:42]

Don't get your hopes up -- you know exactly what I mean...
It's more like you're being inattentive. General beautiful phrases are not appropriate here, we are talking about specific things. "I don't see anything shameful or terrible in giving your life for your beliefs" - who is this about? about the heroes of the Patriotic War or the victims of repression? If it's about heroes, what are their beliefs?...
In this sense, the pompous phrase sounds simply blasphemous mockery. "Or take the life of an enemy" - again, what enemy? a German occupier, or a peasant who wanted to save his children from starvation, or a scientist who wanted to think the way he wanted to think, not the right way?

Tentator, your statement "about the fallacy of waging war" is at least vague and required interpretation (including, as this post of yours showed, your own). If for you the concepts of "the fallacy of waging war" and "the fallacy of the methods of waging it" are equivalent, then, therefore, in the capital's universities, logic is really taught differently compared to Ivanovo State University, whose law faculty I had the honor to graduate from. And do not put your ambiguous thought (not in content, but in the form of expression, based on your interpretation) on the same level as the clear and accurate saying of Salix. If you really don't understand that Salix didn't address the issue of hostility of victims of repression (for themselves or someone else) at all, then it means that I and he speak different languages with you (and not only in an ideological sense).
In your opinion, the heroes who gave their lives for the freedom and independence of the Motherland can't have any convictions? And they are unique to victims of repression? Or did I misunderstand you again (even quoting you almost verbatim)?

About education - I will answer. It is the brains that are" leaking", not the bags full of knowledge. You see, students are always divided into three categories: good boys, daredevils and "neither this nor that". As a rule, good boys and "out of the blue" turn out to be people who please the system. Daredevils are persistently broken, and if it turns out, then with a crunch and forever. And if it doesn't work out, then either people with a capital letter or scum come out.

Yes, a very interesting classification of schoolchildren (although delusional, sorry for the directness). By the way, apparently, you consider yourself (during the school period) to be a daredevil?

Dmitrich, I admire the subtlety of your demagogy. You're a lawyer, aren't you?" I'm sorry, but in my opinion, although in words you call for an end to this dispute, in fact you support it in every possible way.

Well, if you're interested, I have a first degree in biology and a second degree in law. Well, from the appeals (which you, alas, did not heed), let's move on to the method of personal example: I stop my participation in the discussion of this topic. As the Indians used to say from my favorite DEFA movies in my childhood: "How, I said it all!". I have the honor.

And I probably agree with Amara about this: something stimulated scientists, even if they were formed before 1917, to make discoveries at that time... I'm still puzzling over something (and thanks to Tentator for this): where did Vernadsky get his ideas about the noosphere? After all, they fit very well into the canvas of communist utopias. Has anyone read Efremov's science fiction - "The Andromeda Nebula" first of all? He was also a scientist, by the way. And at the same time, Vernadsky, it turns out, took a lot of grief from the Soviets with a vengeance... I suspect that everything could not have gone smoothly for Yefremov either-only, to my shame, I do not know his biography. Maybe, after all, they were contagious, these slogans acted on a subconscious level - and up to some point stimulated creativity, ideas,scientific thought? I really can't understand it...

M-yes... sadly. It is worth leaving for a week on vacation, as gentlemen entomologists went to hell. Politics, like religion, is a poor field for argument. And, in any case, not on the territory of the entomological forum. Unfortunately, I only got to this topic today and it's too late to change the situation because the aggravation has already occurred. But, nevertheless, I will send it to the "Conversation", where all those who want to continue it can go.

I just want to add a wish to all participants to return to the bosom of the forum as entomologists and forget personal attacks. Well, let them not forget, but at least abstract from them and certainly not show them on the forum. Good luck.

Well, apparently, at the Ivanovo University, where you had the honor to study, they somehow inadequately teach not only logic, but also the Russian language. By itself, the phrase "erroneous conduct of war" has two meanings and it should be understood from the context, which in this case is obvious, since this phrase is a response to "There were also reasons (erroneous and incompetent) why Stalin did not prepare for an attack from Germany." many people might have had the same experience, but in this case it does not matter, because they did not die for them, as may follow from a high-sounding and meaningless phrase, but out of a desire to protect their homeland. Love for the Motherland is not a conviction, but naturally a consequence of mental health. And in general, discussing someone's demagogic exercises is much less meaningful and useful for a forum than discussing topics that are indirectly related to the main topic, in this case, the history of science.

And I probably agree with Amara about this: something stimulated scientists, even if they were formed before 1917, to make discoveries at that time... I'm still puzzling over something (and thanks to Tentator for this): where did Vernadsky get his ideas about the noosphere?

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think you're right. What does "coming out" mean? Vernadsky, like so many scientists and cultural figures in general, was against Bolshevism and the Soviet government. It is unlikely that with such a mood, Kumach slogans could affect their creativity (except perhaps negatively). I remember the story about the slogan "Solovki to the workers and peasants" And tell me, what does the noosphere have to do with communist utopias? The noosphere is a stage in the development of the biosphere in which human activity becomes the main geological force. What did you mean by that?

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. It is not always necessary to keep silent about a heinous act. For example, if someone at Your

Speaking behind your back, writing about the dead - not a great feat. Now there is a lot of wildebeest around us

No, it just happened to be my fault.

I remember a lady's story

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. It is not always necessary to keep silent about a heinous act. For example, if someone on your topic published a paper with obviously falsified data, will you remain silent?

Yes, indeed Vernadsky was inclined to utopian ideas,

I would not speak so categorically about the utopian nature of Vernadsky's ideas. He was very much ahead of his time in many ways, and many of his thoughts are only now beginning to be understood. And what does "utopian" mean? -- something that contradicts the logic of things and the direction of development of society, or something that will not happen in our century? For example, are the ideas of the Russian cosmists utopian about the evolution of man, at one of the remote stages of which he will become a "bundle of thinking matter"? Yes, now it's funny, unbelievable. I remember how one philological professor, shaking his shoulders, shouted that man is beautiful as he was created, and that he personally does not want to give up his physicality and be some kind of "clot".

In general, this is a big paradox of Russia: the eternal search for the causes of our "bad present" in the past, and the idealization of certain periods

And where else do you suggest to look for the cause of "today" if not in "yesterday"? It is the same phylogeny here: a trait acquired by an ancestor is inherited by all its descendants, and instead of genes, memes (and, by the way, the fight against "unworthy" actions with them is the essence of the reparative mechanism). Only in the culture of descendants can one person have many more than biological children. General P. N. Krasnov said: "The present? We don't have it, only the past and maybe the future. We will draw knowledge from the past to improve the future." And one more word – "idealization". Kind of like an expletive. On the other hand, how can a person live, i.e., not exist, namely, live, develop, without ideals? Where do these ideals come from?

Indeed, it is rather strange to ask anything at all from local hired scientific workers who can only drip in a test tube....

This is your right. Vernadsky has been elevated to the cult of an icon, although he has many different absurdities (as Gilyarov wrote in Zhoba, and I trust him more than you).

There are no infallible people. Even geniuses, among whom Vernadsky undoubtedly belonged, are mistaken. What does Alexey Merkuryevich accuse Vernadsky of? On occasion, I will definitely read this article of his, but now I would be grateful for retelling in a nutshell the essence of the absurdities.

If non-specialists start doing this, there will be a lot of blunders and schematizations. In history, everything is exactly the same + also ideology. These are times when we urgently need to dissociate ourselves from the communist past as harmful and vicious.

Here I see a direct link to your message and the previous one. A cultured person must have humanitarian knowledge, even if he is engaged in the evolution of flies, and must have a proper worldview. Hoping that some expert will create it and write it in an accessible book is like eating food chewed by someone else's teeth. And I don't see any "urgent separation from communist times": remember what anthem we wake up to, the names of the streets where we live. China! This is a country of a completely different culture, it is impossible to look up to it. By the way, I often hear about the unprecedented pace of science in China, but everything that has been done in this country in recent years in the group that I am engaged in does not fit into any gate... And the Germans would be fine if they were tormented by a choice: whether to condemn the crimes of the Nazi regime or come to a compromise: after all, naka developed under Hitler! "That's when there was a huge (qualitative) leap."

If I encounter a deception in the field of history, I will keep silent, because

Well, it wasn't really about historical facts, but rather about methods of conversation. I didn't understand a little bit, should I keep silent about unworthy actions for ethical reasons or because of incompetence?

About Vernadsky: I created a theme http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=238429

Nevertheless, there is an objective fact: there are more publications of Chinese scientists in the world's leading biological journals than in Russian ones. How long have you seen our people in Nature or Science?

"do not judge - yes, you will not be judged"

And what do you mean by "our"? If it's just our people, I've only recently seen them. If it's a Russian affiliate, I don't follow it on purpose.