What can motivate a scientist to falsify? Why is there an epidemic of lies in modern science? Falsification in art

Scientists, informed about the actual state of affairs with the experimental verification of the foundations of modern physics, face a moral choice - either turn a blind eye to experimental facts, or, risking their reputation, career and financial situation, try to change the current situation in physics. To do this, it will be necessary to carry out a fundamental reconstruction of the entire edifice of physical science.

Even in the ancient world, knowledge was hidden from the public by a narrow circle of initiates: Egyptian and Greek priests, Indian Brahmins, alchemical schools. The concealment of knowledge continued during the era of printing.

Newton, for example, kept his alchemical experiments secret. Subsequently, military and commercial interests became the main reasons for hiding scientific information. Classification is an inevitable evil for science, but it is temporary and is compensated by investing additional funds in science. The discovery of military secrets often leads to breakthroughs in science and technology, as has happened in recent years, for example, with computer science and hydrogen energy.

Disclosure of trade secrets eliminates monopolism in the production of goods and promotes market development. If the concealment and falsification of scientific information is carried out by scientists themselves at their own will, then this leads to stagnation of science, a waste of labor and financial resources, and the development of dead-end and sometimes dangerous areas of research. The most dramatic events in the history of science related to the concealment and falsification of knowledge occurred at the beginning of the 20th century and led to a revolution in physics and natural science.

The revolution began with the publication in 1905 of articles by the aspiring physicist A. Einstein on light quanta and the special theory of relativity (STR). Thanks to the press, the whole world was soon talking about Einstein and his work. Powerful propaganda and the simplicity of the postulates and slogans of the revolution predetermined its quick victory. Throwing aside the works of the classics, physics began to move forward by leaps and bounds, and by the early 40s of the 20th century its structure had practically taken shape.

Then the foundations of the new physics were mothballed for many decades, and the authors of textbooks were mainly engaged in rewriting the material. And the titanic work of Hooke, Young, Laplace, Poisson, Hamilton, Gauss, Green, Cauchy, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin and many other great physicists and mathematicians in the field of hydromechanics of the ether was practically forgotten after the canonization of SRT.

It’s amazing, but even Newton’s laws and Maxwell’s equations in their original writing are now unknown to the vast majority of physicists! Not only the forms of recording were distorted, but also their physical content (see the book by A.P. Smirnov and I.V. Prokhortsev “The Principle of Order”).

The quantum relativistic revolution is the result of the falsification of classical science and the concealment of experimental data

It is generally accepted that the new physics, based on the theory of relativity and quantum concepts, has extended the scope of physical laws to high speeds and small particles. However, quantum theory specialists are well aware that in the limiting case of large particle sizes and masses, quantum mechanics does not transform into classical mechanics. The problem of the relationship between quantum and classical physics has still not been solved, although this is rarely advertised in textbooks. It turns out that the equations of relativistic electrodynamics in the limiting case of motion of charges with low velocities contradict the equations of classical electrodynamics.

In 1883, British physicists D. Fitzgerald and O. Heaviside replaced the total derivatives on the right sides of the differential equations of electrodynamics of J. C. Maxwell with partial ones. The content of Maxwell's true equations is unknown to modern physicists, since after the canonization of SRT they were removed not only from physics textbooks, but also from books on the history of physics. The reason for this was very compelling: the indicated Galilean equations are invariant, which is incompatible with SRT. The simplification made it possible to solve many problems, but it was only suitable for the special case of a stationary ether. However, Heaviside applied new equations for the moving ether, and already in 1889 he derived almost all the relativistic relations that later appeared in the works of G. Lorentz, A. Poincaré and A. Einstein. Heaviside's works are also not written about in textbooks, since they do not fit into the context of the history of the creation of SRT. In addition, Fitzgerald and Heaviside brought the system of electrodynamics equations to the form of inhomogeneous wave equations, without noticing that the new system of equations turned out to be nonequivalent to the old one. Kelvin was categorically against such transformations, but most physicists did not listen to him. Even the violations of Newton's third law that appeared in the new electrodynamics were ignored.

Einstein could not have suspected all this, because he did not become familiar with the classical works of the British school of electrodynamics due to his ignorance of the English language. When creating SRT, Einstein was guided by the work of the Dutch physicist G. Lorentz and the French mathematician A. Poincaré. Einstein’s reference book on electrodynamics was Lorentz’s monograph “An Experience in the Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies,” published in German in 1895. But Lorentz, as it turned out, did not know about the latest work of British physicists. In particular, he did not imagine that the space-time transformations, later named after him, had already been used by Fitzgerald, Heaviside and then another British physicist J. Larmore.

However, unlike Einstein, Lorentz still read Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in the French translation. It is less clear why the mistakes of the creators of classical electrodynamics were not noticed by the leading mathematician of that time, Poincaré, whose works contained the entire mathematical apparatus of SRT, which turned out to be even redundant for Einstein. Poincaré was critical of Maxwell's electrodynamics, which was based on complex hydromechanical analogies. As a mathematician, Poincaré valued clarity, logic, and the possibility of a rigorous mathematical treatment of physical problems. Apparently, therefore, he simply took for granted the transformations that Fitzgerald and Heaviside, and after them the German physicist G. Hertz, carried out in electrodynamics. Regarding Einstein’s theory, Poincaré said that it is impossible to derive Lorentz transformations based on only two of Einstein’s postulates (Poincaré had three postulates). Poincaré's words were confirmed: Einstein was never able to derive these transformations, and the conclusions proposed by other scientists turned out to be mathematically incorrect. In other words, SRT cannot be considered a physical theory at all!

Another surprising conclusion that follows from Maxwell's equations in their usual modern notation (which is called the Hertz-Heaviside form) is that they assume an infinitely large transfer rate of Coulomb and magnetic interactions. The same conclusion is valid for the true Maxwell equations. In reality, this means that Coulomb and magnetic forces are transmitted in space much faster than an electromagnetic wave. The idea that Coulomb and magnetic interactions are transmitted in a vacuum at the speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations in wave form. But regular and waveforms are not equivalent! Experience shows that the transmission speed of Coulomb and magnetic interactions is indeed much higher than light. If modern physicists had become acquainted with the classical theories of the ether, they would not have been surprised by this conclusion: force is transmitted at the speed of longitudinal sound in the ether, and an electromagnetic wave propagates at the speed of the transverse wave of bends and turns of the vortex tube. Thus, STR, which declared the speed of light to be limiting, contradicts both Maxwell’s equations and experiments. It turns out that Einstein’s arguments, well known from physics courses, about clock synchronization, simultaneity of events, the relationship between space and time, etc. - nothing more than fantasy. The idea of ​​SRT about the formation of a single electromagnetic field by electric and magnetic fields also turns out to be erroneous.

Unfortunately, the physics community turned out to be misinformed about experiments to test SRT for many decades. In reality, there are no experiments confirming it! In order not to cause confusion among the reader who is familiar with physics from school and university textbooks, let us explain what we are talking about. But first, let’s quote a statement from the book “Optics of Moving Bodies” by U.I. Frankfurt and A.M. Frank: “Doubting the validity of SRT today is the same as doubting the existence of nuclear energy after long-term operation of nuclear power plants or the reality of particle accelerators...”.

Most physicists will easily subscribe to these words, although they distort facts that have become the history of physics. The fact is that the work of nuclear power plants and accelerators only confirms the relationships between energy, mass and momentum that were known long before the creation of SRT, as well as the ideas of Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Lorenz and other physicists about the longitudinal compression of fast-moving particles and the slowdown in the rate of processes occurring in them. But there are a huge number of experiments that contradict SRT. Among them are elementary electrical experiments carried out by Faraday (the uniform movement of magnets, contrary to SRT, does not lead to the appearance of an electric field in a stationary reference frame). Only modern physicists do not know Faraday’s work. As for accelerators, the phasing of electrons into bunches of up to 1010 particles in a sphere with a radius of 1 μm and the practical independence of the characteristics of synchrotron radiation from the diameter of the accelerator refute the concepts of STR.

After the Nazis came to power, the theory of relativity was banned in Germany. The physicists who remained there, most of them “anti-relativists” by conviction, and not by command from above, carried out experiments at accelerators and successfully worked on creating an atomic bomb. They could well have created nuclear weapons before the fall of the Hitler regime, but they delayed the work. It is a known fact that German “anti-relativists” transmitted information about atomic weapons through secret channels to their former compatriots in the United States, who became devout “relativists.” It should also be noted that the ban on the theory of relativity did not in any way affect the technical progress of Nazi Germany, which produced the world's best cars, ships, airplanes, radios, tape recorders, and even regular television broadcasts were established. Einstein postulated the absence of ether as a world medium.

However, in the experiments of 1905-1925. D.K. Miller was able to not only measure the speed of the ethereal wind and its galactic direction, but also show that wind speed increases with altitude. In addition, Miller established that there is no ethereal wind when the measuring device is shielded by a metal case or the walls of the room. Miller's work was discussed at a special conference in 1927. Supporters of SRT appealed to the work of R.J. Kennedy, who received a zero result. Miller's arguments that Kennedy's experiments were carried out under conditions of wind screening by the instrument body and could not give a positive result were not taken into account by them. In 1929, A. Michelson and his colleagues, in a series of new experiments, generally confirmed Miller’s results. However, these experiments are not mentioned in monographs and textbooks, but Kennedy’s experiments and later laser measurements of the ethereal wind (which correspond not only to STR, but also to ethereal theories) are described in some detail. In 1998, Ukrainian radiophysicist Yu.M. Galaev, using radio interferometers, was able to confirm the correctness of the results of Miller and Michelson.

In another of his famous papers in 1905, Einstein proposed a hypothesis about light quanta. According to his ideas, the atom emits needle-shaped trains of waves, perceived by the substance as particles of light - photons. However, soon the Hungarian physicist P. Zeleny experimentally showed that the atom emits ordinary spherical electromagnetic waves, and Einstein was forced to agree with this. At the end of his life, he admitted that after half a century of thought, he had not advanced one step in understanding the question of the nature of the photon.

However, all the difficulties that arose at the beginning of the 20th century have now been successfully overcome using classical methods. For example, it was previously believed that according to classical electrodynamics, an electron uniformly rotating around a nucleus should radiate and, as a result, quickly fall onto the nucleus. This served as an obstacle to the creation of a classical model of the atom. If we correctly solve this problem using Maxwell's equations in the Hertz-Heaviside form, and not in the wave form, then it turns out that the electron does not radiate and the atom is stable. It’s curious, but in order to come to this conclusion, it was possible not to solve Maxwell’s equations, but just to correctly apply Newton’s third law!

Unfortunately, violations of conservation laws have penetrated so deeply into electrodynamics and all modern physics that they have long ceased to be noticed. Bothe's experiment, the Compton effect, X-ray bremsstrahlung and other experimental facts that previously allowed only a quantum interpretation were also given a classical explanation. It is little known that one of the creators of quantum mechanics, E. Schrödinger, was guided by classical ideas about the motion of an electron; by the squared modulus of the wave function he understood the normalized charge density of the electron cloud and was convinced that classical electrodynamics remains valid inside the atom. Schrödinger's concept of quantum mechanics turned out to be unclaimed for a long time. Several years ago, thanks to the work of the American theorist A. Baruth and his colleagues, Schrödinger's concept was completely confirmed. Moreover, it was shown that from this concept, using only the Schrödinger equation and classical electrodynamics with relativistic corrections (which, by the way, were known long before the creation of SRT), one can strictly obtain the main results of quantum electrodynamics, previously achieved only using mathematically incorrect and logically unfounded renormalization and secondary quantization procedures. Einstein, as is known, opposed the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics and took a position close to Schrödinger’s.

The quick victory of the supporters of the probabilistic interpretation, led by N. Bohr, over Schrödinger and Einstein was explained not so much by the unfortunate mistakes of the latter, but by the fact that the physical elite was already accustomed to thinking in probabilistic categories. By that time, the controversy surrounding the statistical theories of L. Boltzmann and W. Gibbs had been completely forgotten. Meanwhile, one of the main provisions of statistical mechanics about the ergodicity of systems has remained a hypothesis.

Let us remind the reader that a system is called ergodic in which averaging a physical quantity over space leads to the same result as averaging over time. By the early 90s of the 20th century, as a result of a critical analysis of the mathematical content of statistical mechanics, as well as numerical experiments on powerful computers, it became clear that only hypothetical systems of non-interacting particles can be ergodic. Interaction between particles (for example, Coulomb or van der Waals) leads to a loss of ergodicity. So real systems of interacting particles are not ergodic, and dynamic rather than statistical methods of description should be applied to them.

The emergence of new physics

At the beginning of the 20th century, the leading positions in physics were occupied by two scientific schools - British and German, and the financial position of the German school was better. Einstein noted that German physicists were financed by outright militarists. Both schools, and most physicists of the older and middle generations, reacted negatively to SRT. This was evidenced by the position of the Nobel Committee, which refused to award Einstein a prize for the creation of SRT.

However, massive propaganda of Einstein's work had a much more effective effect on young minds than criticism from specialists, which few people heard. The scale of this propaganda campaign can be judged from the fact that the first article on SRT by an unknown patent scientist from Bern, immediately after its publication in 1905 by a peripheral German scientific journal, was completely transmitted by transatlantic telegraph to the New York Times newspaper. Subsequent numerous publications in the world press about the brilliant physicist and his theory were also clearly custom-made. Until now, the topic of the source of financing and the organizers of this campaign remains taboo for historians of science (remember that Soviet historians were silent about the main source of financing for the Bolshevik coup for seven decades).

It is important to note that it was much easier for young scientists to understand the provisions of the new physics, based on simple postulates, than in the complex constructions of Maxwell, Kelvin, J. Thomson, Lorentz and other developers of ether theories. Lorentz, Michelson and other prominent opponents of SRT were under pressure from the financial organizers of the relativistic revolution (their methods of work are described in the essay by the famous Soviet physicist V.K. Frederiks “Hendrik Anton Lorentz”, as well as in the book by L.P. Fominsky “The Miracle fall"). By a strange coincidence, in the midst of discussions about the theory of relativity, Einstein's main opponents and competitors suddenly passed away in the prime of their lives. Poincaré, G. Minkowski, W. Ritz, M. Abraham, F. Gazenorl, G. Nordström, A. Friedman, K. Schwarzschild.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that SRT found very authoritative defenders among physicists of the middle generation. The German physicist M. Planck, known for his work on thermodynamics and musical acoustics, introduced the concept of the quantum of action in 1900, which allowed him to construct a successful formula for the distribution of energy in the spectrum of a black body. But his reasoning seemed unconvincing to his contemporaries, and they were not paid attention to.

In 1905, Einstein extended the idea of ​​the quantum of action to the process of radiation. Planck was so inspired by this that he supported all of Einstein's innovations. The English physicist Larmore worked for a long time on issues of hydromechanics of the ether, but took as a basis not Maxwell’s equations, but what Fitzgerald and Heaviside obtained from them. Faced with serious contradictions, Larmore abandoned his ethereal research, declaring that the ether is an immaterial medium. It is not surprising that Larmore positively perceived the SRT and even, as a member of the House of Commons, began to promote it from the rostrum of parliament. The German mathematician A. Sommerfeld, who by chance took up physics, was guided by the work of Larmore and also supported SRT. Larmore and Sommerfeld, thanks to their extensive teaching experience, created very high-quality textbooks, which subsequently served as the basis for many physics courses (including the Landau and Lifshits course, popular in Russia). Thus, subsequent generations of physicists began to be brought up on distorted ideas of electrodynamics and reckless faith in the postulates of the theory of relativity.

We have already noted that with experimental confirmations of SRT the situation was completely different from what is now written in textbooks. Experimental physicists were irritated by the tendentious choice of experiments and the free interpretation of their results by theorists. Michelson regretted that his early experiments gave rise to such a monster as SRT. Miller, a student of Michelson, and Sagnac, who carried out experiments with a rotating interferometer, considered their results as unconditional evidence of the existence of the ether. Ive and Stilwell, who studied the transverse Doppler effect, believed that they had confirmed Lorentz's electron theory, not SRT. The largest experimenter of the first third of the 20th century, E. Rutherford, called Einstein’s theory nonsense. The genius of electrical engineering I. Tesla stated that only naive people could consider it a physical theory.

The situation with experimental confirmations of the general theory of relativity (GR) was no better. For example, the classical calculation of the angle of deflection of light near the solar disk, made by I. Soldner back in 1801, led to a result coinciding with Einstein’s. Einstein's calculation of the shift of Mercury's perihelion had the character of a falsification: the result of General Relativity was used in conjunction with classical celestial mechanics, in which the speed of propagation of gravitational interaction was assumed to be infinitely large. The shift of spectral lines in the gravitational field, measured much later, could be considered not as a consequence of general relativity, but as a result of the work of gravity on the photon.

In 1929, the American astronomer E. Hubble established that the red shift of the spectral lines of galaxies is proportional to the distance to them. Proponents of the theory of relativity immediately announced this fact as a brilliant confirmation of the conclusion of General Relativity about the expansion of the Universe. Hubble's own opinion was ignored. Meanwhile, Hubble, based on many observations, convincingly showed that the red shift cannot be of a Doppler nature. The universe is not expanding, and there was no Big Bang. It is interesting that the term “Big Bang” was also proposed by the English astrophysicist F. Hoyle, an opponent of the theory of the expanding Universe, and with his term he wanted to emphasize the absurdity of this theory.

After Hitler came to power in 1933, many leading German physicists emigrated mainly to the United States and quickly took leading positions in universities and research centers. For them, criticizing the theory of relativity or ideas about quanta was tantamount to supporting Hitler. Since then, the secret of the great physical revolution has been strictly preserved by the world physical elite, and the vast majority of physicists of subsequent generations are not even aware of its existence.

Negative consequences of the quantum relativistic revolution for other sciences and the danger of falsification of knowledge

The quantum relativistic revolution has led to distorted views of reality in a variety of areas. To be convinced of the extent to which the ideas of modern physics diverge from reality, it is enough to read the radiant forecasts of leading experts on the development of a controlled thermonuclear fusion program, given two or three decades ago. According to their plans, by the beginning of the 21st century the era of thermal energy should have ended. The opposite happened: the leading world powers are gradually curtailing nuclear energy and replacing it with thermal energy, and they have almost forgotten about thermonuclear programs. Even repeated hikes in oil and gas prices recently have done little to change this trend. The discovery of high-temperature superconductivity, the most significant scientific achievement of recent years, came as a surprise to physicists, and this discovery was made by chemical technologists.

Several years ago, physicists argued that optical computers were absolutely necessary for progress in computing and information science. As it turned out, technology made a huge leap forward even without their creation. Now theoretical physicists are hatching a project for quantum computers. But practitioners no longer believe in such projects.

In recent years, some completely new technologies have been developed completely contrary to the generally accepted ideas in physics: cold transmutation of elements, energy conversion using retrograde condensation of steam, endothermic electrolysis, generation of excess heat in vortex installations, etc. Although these technologies have been tested in different countries, the devices based on them are mass-produced and are in good service; a number of prominent physicists even refuse to recognize the fact of their existence as contrary to known laws. Let us give a few more examples from different scientific fields.

• 1. Geophysics. In the 80s of the 20th century, the world's leading geologists, based on a variety of experimental data (including satellite measurements), came to the conclusion that the Earth was expanding at a speed of about 1 cm/s. The reason for the expansion, the absorption of the surrounding ether by the Earth and the synthesis of chemical elements from it, was written a century ago. Physicists and geophysicists cannot admit the fact of the expansion of the Earth, since they deny the ether. As a result, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic activity, terrestrial magnetism, and the formation of mineral deposits remain without a satisfactory explanation.
• 2. Paleontology. Modern science recognizes the existence of giant land and flying dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era. According to the laws of mechanics, such lizards could move and fly only under the condition that the force of gravity in the Mesozoic was many times less than it is now. Paleontologists who do not recognize the expansion of the Earth have to put forward ridiculous hypotheses about lizards walking underwater or gliding after first climbing rocks on foot.
• 3. Origin of life. Until recently, this issue was dominated by the point of view of physicists, according to which, apparently, only on Earth there are conditions for the existence of living organisms: solar radiation, a warm climate, the presence of molecular oxygen and water. The discovery of new species of bacteria in wells at a depth of several kilometers and of deep-sea pogonophore worms, for which the combination of these conditions is not required, refuted the views of physicists.
• 4. Genetics. It is generally accepted that hereditary information is stored in the genetic code. However, calculations show that even the construction of the simplest plants and animals requires a volume of information that exceeds genetic information by more than ten orders of magnitude. So the genetic code is, at best, only a code for extracting information stored at levels of organization of matter unknown to science. Recognizing matter as only the world of elementary particles and four types of fields, physics fundamentally does not allow us to get closer to understanding the phenomenon of life.
• 5. Biophysics. One of the main problems of biophysics remains the explanation of the energy and biochemistry of living organisms. Experiments with growing crops using hydroponics remain unclear: they do not require carbon to grow. Even the growth of trees on sandy soils is inexplicable within the framework of modern ideas: the carbon dioxide content in the air is clearly insufficient. Experiments on measuring the isotopic composition of elements in plants and animals are hushed up. The ability of animals and, in particular, humans to undergo prolonged fasting remains inexplicable. Meanwhile, a number of researchers have long shown that the energy of life is inextricably linked with the transmutation of elements. Since cold transmutation of elements is not recognized by modern physics, biophysicists, biologists, doctors and agrochemists do not admit its possibility.
  6. Origin of man. According to excavations, the main species of mammals lived on Earth hundreds of millions of years ago. Modern man as a biological species has existed for only a few tens of millennia. Therefore, for science, the origin of man and his subspecies (races) remains a complete mystery. There is a hypothesis about the artificial origin of humans as a species obtained by genetic engineering. At first glance, such a hypothesis looks unscientific. However, there are many ancient images in which people, together with cattle, lead sphinxes, griffins and other similar monsters. Therefore, we have to admit that genetic experiments were indeed carried out in ancient times.
• 7. Origin of languages, religions and sciences. The anthropic principle, which, at the behest of physicists and natural philosophers, guides scientists in other specialties, does not allow the possibility of the existence of prehistoric civilizations. However, even in the 19th century, many historians believed that the legends and myths of the ancient world were based on actual events, and the gods who appeared in them, possessing immortality, were reality. There were also more ancient highly developed civilizations. Then humanity owes the origin of languages, religions and sciences to their representatives. It is worth remembering Newton’s words that his scientific achievements were the result of deciphering ancient manuscripts.
• 8. History. The falsification of the history of the ancient world is also related to the issues noted above. Historians ignore such facts as Sumerian indications of the existence of great pyramids in the pre-Pharaonic era, the similarity of architectural and sculptural monuments of antiquity in Egypt, South America, the Middle East and Northern Europe (for example, stone sculptures identical to ancient Egyptian ones were recently discovered on the Kola Peninsula), the impossibility reproduction of monuments even with modern technical means. Within the framework of the concept of modern man as the highest stage of evolution that emerged in the 20th century, it is impossible to get closer to unraveling the mysteries of antiquity. Scientists falsified the history of later periods under pressure from the authorities and the church. But the scientific community falsified the history of physics and natural science of its own free will, due to its own delusions.
• 9. Communication. Communication technologies are developing using the method of least resistance, moving to increase capacity towards increasingly higher radio frequencies, which are dangerous for the human body due to the resonant buildup of vibrations of protein molecules. In addition, due to the erroneous understanding of modern electrodynamics about the field structure and power flow in the near zone of emitters (fundamental errors, as mentioned above, were made by Heaviside and Fitzgerald), the degree of influence of a cell phone or communicator on a person is underestimated. Cellular telephony is particularly harmful to children. Statistics show an increase in the incidence of tumors of the right hemisphere of the brain. The genetic effects of cell phone use have not been studied at all. Meanwhile, methods are known to repeatedly reduce the impact of a cell phone on the body (propaganda of headsets, introduction of new standards for information compression without increasing the carrier frequency, development of effective schemes for automatically adjusting the radiation power, reducing the distance between transmitting and receiving stations). From classical ethereal theories follows the possibility of superluminal communication, necessary for space communications (including the Internet). However, the theory of relativity prohibits such a connection.
• 10. Energy. The main directions of development of energy in the 20th century were determined mainly by the worldview of physicists. Physicists still believe that it is necessary to develop nuclear energy and solve the problem of controlled thermonuclear fusion (CTF). And they have already forgotten that just two years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the direct costs of eliminating its consequences exceeded the cost of electricity generated by all nuclear power plants of the USSR in previous years, that the accident cost the lives of tens of thousands of liquidators. As the practice of operating nuclear power plants by private owners in the United States has shown, nuclear energy is competitive only if the state bears the costs of constructing stations and processing plants, disposing of waste, purchasing produced plutonium, and ensuring safety. In other words, in reality, nuclear power plants are unprofitable. A solution to the problem of controlled thermonuclear fusion within the framework of accepted views is hardly possible: modern physicists are not allowed to know about the actual results of nuclear and thermonuclear tests, in which energy releases were recorded that were many times greater than calculated, and deuterium and tritium scattered in hydrogen bombs, practically without reacting. Physicists propose developing solar and wind as non-traditional types of energy. However, their competitiveness is low. In addition, solar energy, per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, turns out to be less environmentally friendly than thermal energy (the production of semiconductor photocells is environmentally harmful). Many physicists don’t even want to hear about such real areas of non-traditional energy as endothermic electrolysis, vortex converters, and transmutation of elements, because they consider them anti-scientific.
• 11. Ecology. Geophysicists, ecologists and climatologists believe that the main cause of environmental pollution and climate change is the combustion of hydrocarbons. As a result, the Kyoto Protocol was signed, limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere in a number of countries. At the same time, the main mechanism for regulating carbon dioxide content was ignored - its dissolution by water and the accumulation of carbonates in the form of marine sediments. The composition of the atmosphere, as studies in recent years have shown, is determined by the balance of reactions of transmutation of nitrogen into oxygen and carbon. The main reason for the increase in the greenhouse effect, apparently, should be considered the barbaric exploitation of gas and oil fields, as a result of which about half of the produced hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere. Toxic substances used as fuel additives cause extreme harm to humans and the environment, but environmentalists rarely remember them.

Many problems that have arisen due to erroneous ideas of physicists pose a threat to human civilization. The development of nuclear energy leads to inevitable environmental pollution, the accumulation of already gigantic reserves of nuclear weapons with the danger of them falling into the hands of dictators, terrorists and criminal structures. In addition, the operation of a nuclear power plant is accompanied by the release of neutrino fluxes, which cannot be contained. The effect of neutrinos on living organisms has not been studied, but statistics show that near nuclear power plants the reproductive capacity of livestock and milk yield are reduced. Experiments with super-powerful accelerators and installations for the implementation of CTS threaten with unforeseen consequences: the mechanisms of energy exchange between particles and physical vacuum (ether) are still not understood. Non-traditional energy projects such as the creation of solar power plants in orbit with energy transmission to Earth using microwave beams are also potentially dangerous. Of particular danger are experiments on cloning and genetic modification of organisms carried out without understanding the mechanisms of these phenomena. Physicists should have the first say in solving such problems. But to do this, they must reconsider their views.

Conclusion

Many venerable scientists have long understood what a cruel joke 20th century physics played on them, but continue to follow the established rules of the game. Ironically, the Commission for Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences stands guard over the inviolability of the provisions of quantum relativistic physics in Russia. Members of the commission, following departmental interests, advocate the development of nuclear energy, the construction of accelerators, the import of foreign radioactive waste into the country, and at the same time accuse dissident physicists and inventors of fraud. It is difficult to call on leaders from science who destroyed the most important areas of research and defamed such extraordinary thinkers as astrophysicist N.A. Kozyrev, to repentance (remember that a large number of academicians took part in the persecution of A.D. Sakharov, but there were no repentants among them). Many are no longer alive, others took untested judgments on faith, and still others did not want to spoil their scientific careers.

But the American scientist Keating found the courage to revise his experiments with atomic clocks installed on airplanes! It turned out that the conclusions of the theory of relativity were not confirmed. The Swedish astrophysicist, Nobel Prize laureate H. Alfvén was not afraid to declare the complete inconsistency of cosmological models based on general relativity! Academician M.M. dared. Lavrentyev and his colleagues confirm the correctness of Kozyrev’s experiments! Astronomers from the Pulkovo Observatory found the courage to declare that the observed stellar aberration corresponds to classical concepts, and not to SRT. American ballisticians decided to report that when calculating the trajectories of spacecraft, the classical, and not the relativistic rule of adding velocities, should be used! The Russian Mission Control Center was not afraid to admit that the atomic clocks installed on geostationary satellites, contrary to the theory of relativity, show the same time as in the Center!

The list of such recognitions received in recent years goes on. Finally, a conclusion that should shock supporters of the theory of relativity has received repeated experimental confirmation: it turned out that the gravitational mass of bodies decreases with increasing energy!

Thus, scientists, informed about the actual state of affairs with the experimental verification of the foundations of modern physics, are faced with a moral choice - either turn a blind eye to experimental facts, or, risking their reputation, career and financial position, try to change the current situation in physics. To do this, it will be necessary to carry out a fundamental reconstruction of the entire edifice of physical science.

Let us note one more important point, without which it is impossible to understand the causes of the great physical revolution and its consequences. Scientists of the 17th - 19th centuries were, for the most part, deeply religious people. They were in awe of God's providence and recognized themselves as the chosen ones, whom God directed to understand the Nature he created.

By the beginning of the 20th century, this attitude towards science was already largely lost. This allowed many talented scientists to go in their research not only against common sense, but also against conscience, to neglect the knowledge gained by the hard work of previous generations. Einstein’s statement is typical: “If you do not sin against reason, you cannot come to anything at all.” It is interesting to trace the evolution of his views on science as he grew older and gradually turned to God. The famous articles of the Bernese period were written by a self-confident and arrogant man, indifferent to religion. They are characterized by categorical judgments, disrespect for their predecessors and a gross violation of scientific ethics, manifested in the absence of references to the works of Poincaré and other luminaries of science of the early 20th century, without which Einstein’s conclusions would have been impossible.

Articles of the 20s - 30s. written by a much more cautious person, who allows for the ambiguity of judgments and the multivariate paths for the further development of physics.

Articles 40 - 50's written by a sage who doubts everything he has done and is aware of his responsibility before God. The modern physical elite is mostly atheistic.

In the last years of their lives, Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Dirac, Brillouin, Feynman and many other outstanding scientists expressed a critical attitude towards the foundations of 20th century physics. Here is what Einstein wrote to his friend M. Besso in 1954: “I consider it quite probable that physics cannot be built on the theory of a field equivalent to the static ether, that is, on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of the castle in the air that I created, including the theory of gravity, and indeed from all modern physics." The possibility of returning to the concept of luminiferous ether in a dynamic form was repeatedly stated by Dirac. The gift of scientific foresight did not deceive the great creators of science. An increasing number of researchers are realizing the fallacy of the basic principles of quantum relativistic physics and are returning to the classical concepts of the dynamic ether, but from the standpoint of modern knowledge. However, the falsification continues: from the Russian translation of Einstein’s scientific biography (author A. Pais), a fragment of his statement about the ether was removed.

In July 2004, the journal "Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk" published an article "On the possibility of experimental verification of the second postulate of the special theory of relativity." The fact of its publication is, at first glance, surprising, since for several decades there has been no discussion of such issues in academic journals. Back in 1934, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (6) “On the discussion of relativism” was adopted, according to which people were sent to camps for criticizing the theory of relativity. After the war, this Resolution began to be violated, and in 1964 the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences had to issue a new Resolution prohibiting questioning the provisions of the theory of relativity. However, as it turns out, this article does not violate this Resolution.

It, like all censored textbooks and monographs, contains references to Michelson's work in 1887, but nothing is said about his later work, or about Miller's experiments. The work of Galaev and many other experiments of recent years that showed the fallacy of the postulates of SRT are not mentioned. If for the authors of some textbooks ignorance of the late works of Michelson and Miller is excusable (their presence is hidden from the general public), then in this case there is a deliberate falsification. The fact is that the author of the article refers to the collection of articles “Ethereal Wind”, published on the initiative of Academician. RAIN V.A. Atsyukovsky in 1993

The collection contains all the main works of Michelson and Miller on measuring the ethereal wind. As already noted, Miller experimentally showed that determining the speed of the ethereal wind when it is shielded by the walls of the room and the body of the device is meaningless. But it is precisely with the help of such experiments that the author of the article in “Advances in Physical Sciences” proposes to test the second postulate of SRT. However, we should thank the author of the article for at least the fact that it contains a link to the collection “Ethereal Wind”, and perhaps there will be curious readers who will pick up this book and find out the truth about the experiments of Michelson and Miller.

When asked by a correspondent about what weapons would be used to fight in the third world war, Einstein replied that he did not know about the third, but in the fourth they would fight with a club. If physicists and scientists of other specialties do not stop using falsified information on such a monstrous scale and continue to hide and distort it themselves, then our surviving descendants will really have to take up the cudgel.

Reference:

Sall Sergey Albertovich, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, All-Russian Scientific Center of the State Optical Institute (GOI named after S.I. Vavilov). The topic of the candidate's dissertation (1994) is “Electrical and optical phenomena in ball lightning.”

Sall S.A., Smirnov A.P., “Phase transition radiation and the growth of a new phase”, ZhTP, 2000, volume 70, issue 7, pp. 35-39.

Sall S.A., Smirnov A.P. “The problem of superluminal communication”, report at the International Scientific Congress-2002 “Fundamental Problems of Natural Science and Technology”, St. Petersburg, 07/8-13/2002.

The special theory of relativity contradicts Maxwell's equations, since it uses an incorrect reduction of them to d'Alembert's wave equations. Maxwellian electrodynamics opens up the possibility of superluminal communication. In prehistoric times, the pyramids at Giza were powerful generators of longitudinal sound in the ether, which served as a means of superluminal communication with distant space objects.

Smirnov Anatoly Pavlovich, professor, presenter of the program "Awareness of Knowledge".

A specialist in the field of solid state physics, low temperature physics and the new direction he created - the physics of real processes. Behind him are well-known schools: the Faculty of Physics of Leningrad State University, the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Kharkov State University. Next - research activities at the Kharkov Physico-Technical Institute, and soon - at the Leningrad Physico-Technical Institute. A.F. Ioffe. In search of the key to unraveling the nature of real processes, numerous studies have been carried out on a wide range of phenomena, a thorough critical analysis of modern physics, its arsenal and capabilities, and discussions at seminars and conferences. The result exceeded expectations and turned out to be paradoxical. Fundamental principles and laws created by the great geniuses of mankind, but not perceived and assimilated in their time by the scientific community and not included in the arsenal of modern knowledge, have been returned to science. This opens up for us a new class of phenomena in the creative laboratory of Nature, a path to understanding living things.

Prokhortsev Ilya Viktorovich

Despite the foreign name (“shape” translated from English as “form”), shaping is a Russian invention. Its author is St. Petersburg scientist Ilya Viktorovich Prokhortsev, who developed a mathematical model of the ideal female figure. He is also the author of a unique computer program for processing initial body data with further calculation of its correct proportions. Sall S.A.

​It is no secret that in Russia there has been a vicious practice of undeservedly awarding academic degrees to politicians, businessmen and various scammers who need “crusts” to advance their careers and for other purposes.

With the help of the free community of experts, researchers and reporters of Dissernet, which is engaged in countering fraud in the field of scientific and educational activities, thousands of cases of falsification of dissertations became known. While the whole country is watching the unprecedented proceedings surrounding the doctoral thesis of the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky, experts from the science festival EUREKA!FEST-2016 discussed the phenomenon of swindlers and thieves in science and proposed ways to combat them.

The discussion was moderated by a scientific journalist, founder of the popularization agency "Russell's Teapot" Irina Yakutenko, who presented her classification of those who engage in such imitation of scientific activity:

The first category is ordinary charlatans who are well aware that they are swindlers, selling snake skin, “pills” with stem cells, and dermatoglyphics tests. Other types are more difficult, since these people really work in science and sincerely believe in their work. For example, the effectiveness of irradiating water so that it supposedly changes its structure and acquires healing properties. This also includes followers of homeopathy and other movements that mainstream science does not recognize.

The next cohort of falsifiers: people who know that something is wrong with their experiments, and deliberately distort the facts and hide the truth for various reasons.

For example, six months ago I would have called surgeon Paolo Macchiarini a swindler,” says Irina Yakutenko. - This man transplanted tracheas grown from stem cells, and he was accused of fraud for a long time, because most of the patients died! But, according to the latest data, Macchiarini was acquitted: they found confirmation that he was simply not entirely correct in his work.

Yakutenko also gave examples of scientists who deliberately falsify research results to achieve profit. The most notorious was, perhaps, the case of the Japanese woman Haruko Obokata, who falsified experiments and announced the creation of so-called STAP cells. As a result of falsifications and hype in the press, Obokata's scientific director, Yoshiki Sasai, committed suicide.

Another category of swindlers are people who are not directly related to science, but use it for their own purposes, as a rule, to gain status and advance their careers. Such “scientists” buy dissertations for the sake of “crust”.

There are swindlers in any profession, but outstanding people go into science - and there are also outstanding swindlers there, noted Irina Yakutenko. - Therefore, it makes sense to find out what motivates scientific schemers?


Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, researcher at the Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, co-founder of the Dissernet movement Andrei Rostovtsev told who is involved in Dissernet cases and proposed some recipes for combating them:

Among our “clients” there are even those whose “work” on the dissertation comes down to just replacing the title page, the rest of the text is total plagiarism. Such people, as a rule, did not write or read their candidate or doctoral dissertations themselves. Basically, they didn’t even see it, everything was done by hired “specialists.” Nevertheless, in Russia there is a large mass of such qualifying work: more than six thousand examples are known today.

The situation becomes more complicated in medical dissertations, when diagnoses are replaced, but the text remains the same. For example, we found two papers with exactly the same content, only in one the psoriasis was changed to microbial eczema. And the medications were corrected: imunofan to cycloferon. All other data coincided word for word, despite the fact that these are different diseases! Unfortunately, the authors are practicing doctors,” adds Andrey Rostovtsev. - They resort to falsification, including because of the established unwritten tradition: if you want to become the head of a department, you must have a candidate’s thesis, if you want to become the head physician, then you must have a doctor’s thesis.

Another example is people whom the expert tactfully called “not entirely healthy”:

Some people collect awards, some collect photos with famous people of this world, and there are those who collect academic degrees. So we found a person who consistently defended five doctorates: in 2010 he became a doctor of sociological sciences, and in 2011 - of physico-mathematical sciences! And before that, he was already in economics and pedagogy, and at the same time he was a member of many fake academies.

"Unfortunately, the State Duma's provision on the statute of limitations for deprivation of an academic degree prevents the fight against such gross fraud, according to which all dissertations defended before January 1, 2011 are considered to be properly scientific, and no one can make a claim against them. One of the co-founders" Dissernet" Andrei Zayakin once in his article called such an innovation as senseless, "as if traffic cops confiscated only those fake driver's licenses that were issued after January 1, 2011, and everyone else who bought a license before this date could easily drive ".

Andrey Rostovtsev spoke about the attempt to introduce amendments to the controversial bill.

With the help of one deputy, we proposed in the State Duma the abolition of the statute of limitations, but the amendments did not pass. Nobody voted against the law.

Experts consider another stumbling block to be the current practice in which an application for deprivation of an academic degree is sent to the same dissertation council where the qualification was awarded. According to statistics, in 90% of cases, work whose value was questioned by experts is still recognized as correct. However, if the complaint reaches the alternative dissertation council, then in 90% of cases it is satisfied. Therefore, Rostovtsev proposed the requirement to consider complaints in an alternative dissertation council, as one of the recipes in the fight against false scientists.

A big problem is posed by companies that write scientific articles, master's and doctoral dissertations to order. This is a huge underground market. We are trying to develop another method - legal prosecution of manufacturers of scientific certification works. This is possible, but it is not yet widespread and there are practically no precedents.


Leading researcher of the SB RAS, Candidate of Biological Sciences Egor Zadereev, believes that there are several “great evils” in Russian science that need to be eradicated:

There should not be a list of scientific journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. After all, in what case will the reputation system work? When it becomes sufficiently numerous, distributed and independent. So far, there is a paradox: the stronger we build a system of protection against schemers, the more difficult it is technically for a normal young scientist to defend himself, since more formalities are involved. And the easier it is for a swindler, for whom the company does everything, to defend himself, says Zadereev. - Our science must be integrated into the world as much as possible. This is the only way we can get a large number of players. Because in some field there may be only ten specialists in Russia. And they will all, by definition, be in a conflict of interest. And when we enter the international market, the parochialism and phoniness begins to collapse.

Another participant in the discussion is Deputy Director named after. G.I. Budkera SB RAS, Dean of the Faculty of Physics of Novosibirsk State University and Corresponding Member of the RAS Alexander Bondar noted that the activities of the Dissernet project are very important, but one should not fall into euphoria:

Crooks are diverse and very inventive. They quickly adapt: ​​they not only shuffle texts more intricately, but also rewrite other people’s ideas in their own words. This is equally dangerous for science. Not only do scammers receive benefits and occupy public positions, but most importantly: this strikes a blow to the authority of honest, conscientious science. For now, I see a way out through examination. Moreover, it is necessary to check not the texts, but the scientific content of the works.


A senior researcher at the Department of Fluid Mechanics at Moscow State University, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics Andrei Tsaturyan, objected to the previous speaker that the main goal of Dissernet is not to expose swindlers, not to check all dissertations, but, above all, to consolidate the scientific community.

Professor at the State University of New York Stony Brook and SkolTech, head of the Laboratory of Computer Design of Materials at MIPT Artem Oganov noted that the fight against pseudoscientists is good, the main thing is “not to go too far”:

Often we start a witch hunt (sometimes society smells of such sentiments, it’s as if it’s hardwired into our DNA). My call is this: don’t pretend to be judges and don’t go too far! It seems to me that if the examination is anonymous, we complicate the situation and muddy the waters, which could be clear. Since this is done in most cases now, it is a very bad practice. Fixed dissenting councils too. Opponents must be selected for each specific dissertation, and this must be public. It's the same with reviewing articles. If a reviewer's name gets out there, it's a great incentive for them to be honest. What kind of transparency can we talk about if the experts are still people wearing masks?

Recorded by Marina Moskalenko

He is pursuing a PhD at UCLA and is at the center of one of the biggest academic scandals in recent years: LaCour falsified a political science study intended to demonstrate that gay campaigners could change voters' opinions on same-sex marriage in a short period of time. conversations After it was revealed that he had fabricated data and had never even worked with the polling company whose services he allegedly used, Science magazine.

“How could this happen?” the New York Times editorial board asked this week. Their answer is that fraud is largely the fault of deceitful or overambitious rule-breakers and researchers who do not properly check the raw data on which scientific work is based. The title of the article is “Cheating Scientists.”

But to focus on academic fraud is to miss the larger problem. It’s not just the “black sheep” who are to blame. The scientific process itself has serious structural flaws that make it difficult to expose fraudsters and, in some cases, even encourage the inaction of responsible researchers.

Most studies are not repeated - it is not profitable for scientists to do this

Let's take the problem of replication. One of the principles of the scientific method is that scientists should try to verify previous findings by repeating experiments. This is how Lacour's deception was discovered: another scientist, David Bruckman, tried to repeat the study and realized that it was impossible.

The problem, however, is that this kind of work is done very rarely. “The vast majority of scientific articles do not receive any development,” explains Harvard University scientist Sheila Yasanoff. Attempts by scientists to replicate the work of others are often discouraged because they are considered less important or worthy than discovering something new.

It is significant that others in the scientific community tried to dissuade Bruckman from checking Lacour's work. He was encouraged to build a career on new research, rather than on refuting the work of others. Jesse Singal observed in his stunning methodical analysis of the situation for New York Magazine:

“Throughout the entire trial, until the very last moment when irrefutable evidence finally began to emerge, Bruckman was repeatedly advised by friends and advisers to remain silent about his doubts, lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker, or, worse, as someone who simply repeats and explores the work of others instead of discovering something himself.”

This is problem. This makes it not only more difficult for scientists to detect deception, but also more difficult to weed out low-quality work. As the scientific community began to take replication seriously, it turned out that much cutting-edge research could not actually be tested by replication.

They are all right. Science is carried out by people and it will inevitably be imperfect. Sometimes people will deceive and cheat, or simply push low-quality and incorrect research through the publication mechanism. We know that replicability can help correct some of these shortcomings. We know that increased attention to the influence of hierarchy can help too. Instead of talking about unscrupulous scientists over and over again, we must adjust the system of science to weed out the errors and deceptions that we know will continue to come between us and the truth.

Fraud in science has been a topic of frequent debate in recent years, but a particularly heated debate has been the question of whether it is simply an occasional “rotten apple” or the “tip of an iceberg” with a bottom that bodes ill. It is clear that scientists in general and research psychologists in particular must be crystal honest in their scientific activities. Principle B of the 1992 General Code explicitly states that psychologists “shall exercise integrity in research, teaching, and psychological practice” (APA, 1992). Moreover, several specific standards in the 1992 code specifically address research fraud. This section addresses the following questions: What is scientific fraud? How common is it? Why does it happen?

Dictionary « American Heritage Dictionary» (1971) defines fraud as “intentional deception practiced to obtain an undeserved or illegal advantage” (p. 523). There are two main types of fraud common in science: 1) plagiarism- deliberate appropriation of other people's ideas and passing them off as one's own and 2) falsification of data. In the 1992 code, plagiarism is specifically condemned by standard 6.22, and data falsification is specifically condemned by standard 6.21 (Table 2.4). The problem of plagiarism is characteristic of all areas of human activity, and falsification of data occurs only in science, so the next section will be devoted specifically to this issue.

Table 2.4Data falsification and plagiarism: standardsARA

Standard 6.21. Report about the results

a) Psychologists do not fabricate data or falsify research results in their publications.

b) If psychologists discover important errors in their published data, they endeavor to correct these errors by correction, retraction, typographical correction, or other appropriate means.

Standard 6.22. Plagiarism

Psychologists do not claim significant portions of other people's work as their own, even when citing that work or data sources.

Data falsification

If science has a moral sin, it is the sin of lack of crystal honesty in handling data, and the attitude towards data lies at the foundation of the entire edifice of science. But if the foundation fails, everything else fails, so data integrity is of utmost importance. This type of fraud can take various forms. The first and most extreme form is when the scientist does not collect data at all, but simply fabricates it. The second is hiding or changing part of the data to better present the final result. The third is collecting a certain amount of data and completing the missing information to a complete set. The fourth is hiding the entire study if the results are not as expected. In each of these cases, the deception is intentional and the scientists appear to be “receiving an undeserved or illegal benefit” (i.e., publication).

Standard 6.25.

Once the results of a study have been published, psychologists should not withhold the data underlying their conclusions from other scientists who wish to analyze them to test the claim made and who intend to use the data only for that purpose, provided that it is possible to protect the confidentiality of the participants and if legal rights to proprietary rights exist. the data does not prevent their publication.

In addition to failure to replicate the findings, fraud may be discovered (or at least suspected) during a standard audit. When a research paper is submitted to a journal or a grant application is submitted to an agency, several experts review it to help decide whether the paper will be published or a grant awarded. Moments that look strange will probably attract the attention of at least one of the researchers. The third opportunity to detect fraud is when employees working with the researcher suspect the problem. This happened in 1980 in one infamous study. In a series of experiments that seemed to make a breakthrough in the treatment of hyperactivity in children with developmental delays, Stephen Bruning obtained data suggesting that in this case

stimulant medications may be more effective than antipsychotics (Holden, 1987). However, one of his colleagues suspected that the data was falsified. The suspicion was confirmed after three years of investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health { National Institute of Mental Health - NIMH), who financed some of Bruening's research. In court, Bruning pleaded guilty to two counts of representation in NIMH falsified data; in reply NIMH dropped charges of perjury during the investigation (Byrne, 1988).

One of the strengths of science is self-correction through repetition of experiments, careful testing, and the honesty of colleagues. And indeed, such an organization many times made it possible to detect fraud, as, for example, in the case of Brüning. But what if the experts can't detect any evidence of falsification, or if the falsified results match other, real discoveries (that is, if they can be repeated)? If fake results are consistent with true findings, there is no reason to check them and the fraud may remain undetected for many years. Something similar probably happened in psychology's most famous case of suspected fraud ("suspected" since the final decision is still pending).

The case concerns one of the most famous British psychologists - Cyril Burt (1883-1971), a leading participant in the debate about the nature of intelligence. His studies of twins are often cited as evidence that intelligence is predominantly inherited from one parent. One of Burt's results showed that identical twins have almost the same performance IQ, even if immediately after birth they were adopted by different parents and raised in different conditions. For many years, no one questioned his findings, and they entered the literature on the heritability of intelligence. However, attentive readers over time noticed that, describing in different publications the results obtained from studying different numbers of twins, Bert indicated absolutely same statistical results (same correlation coefficient). From a mathematical point of view, obtaining such results is very unlikely. Opponents accused him of falsifying results to bolster Burt's beliefs in the heritability of intelligence, while defenders countered that he had collected valid data but had become forgetful and inattentive in his reporting over the years. In defense of the scientist, it was also said that if he had been involved in fraud, he would probably have tried to hide it (for example, he would have taken care of the mismatch of correlations). There is no doubt that there is something strange about Burt's data, and even his defenders admit that many of them have no scientific value, but the question of whether there was intentional fraud or whether it was a matter of inattention and/or negligence may never be answered. resolved, in part, because after Bert's death, his housekeeper destroyed several boxes containing various documents (Kohn, 1986).

It has become very popular to examine the Burt case (Green, 1992; Samelson, 1992), but the important point for our purposes is that irregularities in the data, whether caused by errors, inattention, or intentional distortion, may go undetected if

the data fits well with other findings (that is, if they have been replicated by anyone). This was the case for Burt; his findings were quite similar to those found in other twin studies (eg, Bouchard & McGue, 1981).

It should be noted that some commentators (e.g., Hilgartner, 1990) believe that other than when falsified data replicate “correct” data, there are two other types of reasons why falsification may not be detected. First, the large number of studies published today allows spurious information to slip through undetected, especially if it does not report major findings that attract widespread attention. Secondly, the reward system is designed in such a way that new discoveries are paid, while the work of scientists engaged in “simple” reproduction of other people’s results is not considered fully creative and such scientists do not receive academic awards. As a result, some questionable studies may not be reproducible.

It is also believed that the reward system is in some sense the reason for the emergence of fraud. This opinion brings us to the final and fundamental question - why does fraud occur? There are various explanations - from individual (weakness of character) to social (a reflection of the general moral decline of the late 20th century). Placing responsibility on the academic reward system is placed somewhere in the middle of the list of reasons. Scientists who publish their research get promoted, gain tenure, win grants, and have the opportunity to influence audiences. Sometimes the constant “die, but publish” effect on the researcher is so strong that it leads him (or his assistant) to the idea of ​​​​breaking the rules. This may happen on a small scale at first (adding small amounts of information to produce the desired results), but over time the process will grow.

What does this mean for you as research students? At the very least, this means that you need to be conscientious with the data, follow the research procedure scrupulously, and never do not give in to the temptation to falsify even a small amount of information; Also, never discard data obtained from research participants unless there are clear instructions to do so, determined before the experiment begins (for example, when participants do not follow instructions or the researcher misdirects the experiment). In addition, it is necessary to retain the original data or at least have a brief description of it. The best defense against accusations that your results look weird is your ability to provide data on demand.

The importance of the ethical basis of research cannot be overestimated, which is why this chapter is placed at the very beginning of the book. But the discussion of ethical standards is not limited to one chapter - you will come across this topic more than once in the future. If you, for example, pay attention to the content, you will see that each subsequent chapter contains an insert on ethics, dedicated to

issues such as the confidentiality of field participants, participant selection, responsible use of surveys, and the ethical competence of experimenters. In the next chapter, however, we will consider a problem from a different circle - the development of an ideological basis for research projects.

Not only the Russian Federation, but also other countries around the world are faced with the problem of falsification of scientific achievements. It is known that more than 120 cases of falsification of scientific discoveries have already been uncovered in the United States. science social medicine water

Several types of falsification of scientific discoveries can be distinguished: the first type is violation of copyright and appropriation of someone else's intellectual property, the second type is fabrication of data, that is, adjusting the figures obtained during the study to figures that would correspond to the successful completion of the research. The danger of such falsified scientific discoveries is that the data from such a “discovery” can cause significant and irreparable harm to human health, since other scientists may have mistakenly relied on the data from these studies in their work. People who engage in falsification in the field of science are not guided by good intentions, but most likely by selfish ones. Since a number of countries have special privileges for scientists, the number of published works can also determine the degree of popularity and demand for a scientist. Experts in the field predict that falsification of scientific papers will only increase over time. However, this problem is extremely serious because there is no mechanism for removing false scientific information from the public domain. Biology and medicine suffer the most from falsification. The whole world knows the case of cardiologist John Darcy from Harvard Medical School. During the three years of his activity, he published more than a hundred works. And during the study of his articles by a special commission, the fact that the data obtained was unreliable was revealed. Thus, John Darcy discredited himself, his co-author and the reviewer, who were unable to detect the falsity of the research before the publication of his articles.

This case is not the only one that raises the question: why do scientists, neglecting scientific honesty, publish deliberately false data? Like all ordinary people, scientists must not only engage in scientific research, but also provide for their families. Scientific activity is directly related to positions, grants and employment contracts that scientists enter into with the state or private companies. And to avoid dismissal or demotion, scientists are forced to publish as often as possible. It turns out that in order to be a sought-after scientist, you need to monitor your prestige, status, and position in society. That is, such organization of the work of scientists only contributes to an increase in falsification in science. But we should not forget that all people can make simple human mistakes and scientists are no exception.

Science, to a certain extent, is a tool for managing public opinion, and falsification is directly related to this phenomenon. In order to make one theory scientific and another unscientific, some scientists, sacrificing their high ideals, fabricate research data in such a way as to distort and present the theory as the only true one. And this is already connected with the fact of neglect of moral values. Previously, it was religion and moral values ​​that restrained falsification within permitted limits, but in modern society moral values ​​and religion are already losing their former meaning.