“Amnesty” of the head of the MES Lisovoy. Where the worse pseudoscientific evil is hidden

My feed was filled with quotes from the dissertation of the new Minister of Education, Oksen Lisovoy. Yes, I do not deny it, the examples given prove that it is impossible to talk about scientific knowledge based on them, the quotes from the work are sometimes impressive.

However, from the “outraged” quotes, it can be assumed that the new Minister of Education once positioned himself as an influential scientist, and the conclusions presented in his dissertation were widely circulated in special books to be used as a basis when talking about Ukrainians or Ukrainian identity.

And this is not so. This is absolutely not the case.

While the so-called “second edition” of the book “Genocide of Ukrainians 1932–1933 based on the materials of pre-trial investigations” full of real falsification is being published in front of the same community with a mass circulation – 5 thousand copies are claimed. Stasiuk”. Books published by the publishing house of the National Academy of Legal Sciences.

Books, the first edition of which was distributed in mass libraries, and, apparently, the second one, too, will be collected in this way. Books, the conclusions of which are offered for mass use.

However, given the declared status (at the beginning of the book there are vultures not only of the “National Academy of Legal Sciences, but also of Legal Sciences, the Institute of Archeography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and in general the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), the “expert conclusions” of which can be perceived by the masses as “a guide to actions”, verified by scientists. After all, the “experts” there are almost all “doctors of science”.

I already wrote about some formal flaws of this edition this year. About some outright falsifications of the Holodomor subject – even after the book is published in 2021. Nothing was changed in the new edition.

If you open the so-called “analytical part of the expert opinion”, which deals with the famine of 1921-1923, you can notice a large amount of ignorance or falsifications. Moreover, clearly declared falsifications – such that even the language takes away. It is impossible to explain it simply by plagiarism or inability to work.

I sincerely do not understand how Giorgii Papakin and Olga Movchan – real scientists – could sign such a document, where every paragraph – frank falsification or ignorance.

How was it possible, describing the famine of 1921-1923, to write about the destruction of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) at that time? And this despite the fact that its creation was announced in October 1921, which is written about in every school textbook on the history of Ukraine for the relevant period.

How could real scientists (and not exalted cheer-patriots or full-time falsifiers) put their signature under the falsification of the text of Lenin’s quote?

Photo from Facebook by Gennady Yefimenko

After all, the word “to be” added to the quote changes the meaning of the given part of it, and the falsifiers invented “removed and confiscated” openly distorts the meaning of what Lenin said. After all, in essence, the note was about the need to collect everything planned. And the plan was 100 million poods, of which, as written in the actual Lenin quote, he wanted to export 57 million poods to Russia.

57 million poods is a huge number. Despite the fact that these plans were not implemented (about 80 million commercial bread was collected, and about 30 million poods were exported) in the conditions of the already existing famine in the USSR in a number of provinces, such exportation had very serious consequences for Ukraine.

But…

There was no mention of a “full collection” of food products and the export of EVERYTHING collected to Russia.

But the signatures of doctors of science stand under confirmation of the opposite.

And not only the signatures of doctors of science – under this pseudo-expertise (which, if you believe the statement, there were 5,000 copies), there was also the seal of the Institute of Archeography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine!

Another detail that proves the publication’s unscientific nature: the scan shows that the first part of the two-volume “Lenin on Ukraine” is “cited”. If 1917-1922 is the first part, then what is the second?

I called this one of the smallest falsifications of this pseudo-expertise. All of them can be described and analyzed for a long time, because there are several outright falsifications on each page.

If both publications are to be believed, the Security Service of Ukraine takes such falsifications in pseudo-expertises as a basis for investigating a criminal case.

Such pseudo-knowledge, which not only contradicts the facts, but also openly devalues ​​the history of Ukraine and Ukrainians (it is not difficult to justify this statement), is spreading in the masses.

And the attention of the scientific community, and in general, to all this is almost non-existent.

However, all the attention of the community is focused on the “dissertation”, which was not imposed anywhere and on anyone as a scientific publication or materials for a story on some topic.

On the dissertation, the declared author of which expressed his willingness to give up the degree awarded as a result of his defense – that is, in essence, he declared his willingness to cancel its designation as a scientific work.

I do not argue with the fact that Oksen Lisovyi in the work written during Yanukovych’s time, at least in those numerous fragments cited by his critics, did not demonstrate the skills necessary for scientific work.

But, to paraphrase what he said, he expressed his willingness to admit his mistake. Did he even recognize her?

While ZHODEN, I emphasize – ZHODEN, the signatory of the pseudo-expertise from the book “Genocide of Ukrainians”, which was published in mass circulation in 2021 and 2022 (and not during Yanukovych’s time!) and positions itself as a “scientific publication” – did not say anything about withdrawing his signature, and even about the hypothetical possibility of such a revocation or at least recognition of a mistake.

That is, all the signatories are not only Vasyl Marochko, Svitlana Markova and Volodymyr Vasylenko, but also Olga Movchan, who professionally researched the famine of 1921-1923 and whose research results are contradicted by a number of conclusions in the pseudo-expertise; as well as Georgy Papakin, who is a real specialist in source studies, but signed the conclusion in which the sources are largely falsified or simply absent – even they did not publicly express any doubts about this falsification.

Not only that, the entire Institute of Archeography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, whose stamp is on the specified pseudo-expertise, essentially agreed to support this forgery.

But in general, there are almost no comments about these persons or institutions.

All “attention” goes to the new minister, who does not have even a small share of falsifications similar to those in this book, and whose conclusions are not distributed anywhere as mass knowledge.

Who defended his thesis two years before the Revolution of Dignity, not last year or the year before.

I know many examples when people changed both after the Revolution of Dignity and after the beginning of the full-scale aggression of genocidal Russia.

At the same time, I do not know Oksen Lisovoy, although many acquaintances describe him in the best possible way.

But I am in favor of evaluating him not by a thesis written during Yanukovych’s time, but by actual actions.

And that the same criteria should be applied to the assessment of other people’s “gains”, in particular, to the authors of the mentioned pseudo-expertises (“pseudo”, because an expertise with massive use of falsification cannot be real), based on works published after 2014.

Not only that, but after February 24, 2022, I sincerely hoped that this time the genocidal war of Russia would change Olesya Stasyuk (as one of the compilers of the mentioned book, an “expert” in another pseudo-expertise posted there and as the author of a thesis full of plagiarism, ignorance and falsifications ), doctors of science, who signed those pseudo-expertises. I stopped remembering these shameful incidents.

Yes, regarding these people, as evidenced by the events (the promotion and approval of Stasiuk’s dissertation by the Ministry of Education and Science named after Skarlet-Kryshtof, the “second edition” of the book with shameful falsifications, the absence of retracted signatures or at least statements of such intentions, toleration of the re-issue of the falsification, etc.), I was wrong .

But, despite this, I absolutely do not want the new minister to be deprived of a chance.

I believe it is correct to evaluate him based on the results of his activities and the compliance of his actions with the declared principles.

Personally, an important marker for me will be the decision regarding #kazus_Stasiuk. Let me remind you that at the time of defending her so-called dissertation, she held the position of head of a national-level institution – the Holodomor Museum.

I don’t want to be like those who reproach Poroshenko for participating in the organization of the party that became the embryo of the Party of Regions or Zelensky during his university days.

I am for a kind of “amnesty” (as far as possible) for what happened before 2014.

I admit that, despite my participation in the demonstrations of scientists against the appointment of Scarlett, I even had certain hopes for him for a while, although I did not speak about it publicly. It seemed to me that even Scarlet should have realized that society has changed and that he himself must change.

Then I was wrong. But I’m used to “at the start” thinking better about people I don’t know.

All that being said, I have my hopes up for Oksen Lisovoy. In addition, as the experience of studying historical events tells me, the people who came out of it and know its strengths and weaknesses have the greatest chance to change the system.

If the positive things that acquaintances say about Oksen Lisovoy are true, then we have a real chance. The activity priorities announced by him give reasons for optimism. As with the first announced personnel decision, Tetiana Sergiyivna Vakulenko was appointed director of the Ukrainian Center for Evaluation of the Quality of Education.

And I don’t want us to lose this chance because of troubles in the defense of candidacy during Yanukovych’s time, which (defense) was caused, most likely, by the demand that “everything should be like people” – that is, the practice that existed then . So that the desire for the ideal prevented the implementation of actual and long overdue solutions.

Time will show. If, of course, they give it to Oksen Lisovoy.

If I could make a proposal, I would suggest that he attract Oleksiy Panych to his team – for the purpose of reforming the scientific sphere.

Gennadiy Yefimenko, historian, senior researcher at the Institute of History of Ukraine, participant of the Likbez project. Historical Front, specially for UP. Life

Cover photo: oleksandrberezko/Depositphotos

Publications in the “View” section are not editorial articles and reflect exclusively the author’s point of view.