Monday, September 19, 2011

Darwinisma á skúlagátt í Sovjet: Ein Rættleiðing til Eivind Ortind Simonsen (3)


Í hesum styttra aftursvarinum fari eg at viðgera kelduna sum Eivind Ortind Simonsen gjørdi nýtslu av, í roynd síni at prógva pástandinum, at darwinisma einki hevði at siga í Sovjet líka til 1964 og at darwinisma ikki var innan skúlagátt í Sovjet fyrrenn 1964. Eg fari at vísa á, at sjálv keldan sum Eivind ger nýtslu av, ikki bara er akademisk ónyttulig, men enntá afturvísur pástandi Eivinds. Harnæst fari eg at vísa á aðrar Wikipedia greinar, søguligar keldur og akademiskan lesna sum vísa á, at darwinisma var ómetaliga virkin í Sovjet og tess skúlum um hetta sama mundi av landsins søgu.

Í Wikipediagreinini sum Eivind nýtir lesa vit:
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[1]
Formally, Lysenkoism, or Lysenko-Michurinism, also denotes the biological inheritance principle which Trofim Lysenkosubscribed to and which derive from theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics,[2] a body of biological inheritancetheory which departs from Mendelism and that Lysenko named "Michurinism".
The word is derived from a set of political and social campaigns in science and agriculture by the director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
When Lysenko began his fieldwork in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, the agriculture of the Soviet Union was in a massive crisis due to the forced collectivization movement.
Many agronomists were educated before the revolution, and even many of those educated afterwards did not agree with the collectivization policies. Furthermore, among biologists of the day, the most popular topic was not agriculture at all, but the new genetics that was emerging out of studies of Drosophila melanogaster, commonly known as fruit flies. Drosphilidflies made experimental verification of genetics theories, such as Mendelian ratios and heritability, much easier.
Her síggja vit at tað var ikki fyrrenn í 1930 at Lysenko byrjaði sína nýggju herferð. Vit síggja eisini í øðrum keldum at tað var ikki fyrren í 1939-48, tá Lysenkoisma veruliga náddi sínum hæddarpunkti, at darwinisma veruliga stóð fyri skotum.
Men hetta vísir jú klárt at Eivind fer púra skeivur. Eivind tykist pástanda at Lysenkoisma var ráðandi ástøði í Sovjet, men hann var neyvan greiður yvir, at tíðin hetta rákið ráddi fyri borgum vardi frá mitt 30unum til 1964. Frá teimum ymisku keldunum tykist tað, at áðrenn hetta var Darwinisman tað førðandi rákið. Greinin sum Eivind sipar til sum sítt útgangstøði og kelda, vísir eisini á, sum vit lesa omanfyri, at millum lívfrøðingar um hesa somu tíð, var fokus lagt á ‘genetics’, og tess gransking innan Drosophila melanogaster, í samband við gransking av Mendel.
Omanfyristandandi paragraffin vísir eisini at í Sovjet var tað ein aktiv lívfrøðilig gransking sum mótstríddi Lysenkoismuni. Við øðrum orðum, ein gransking innan skúlagátt. Skulu vit her, taka tær ymisku keldurnar til eftirtektar, er talan her um Mendel og Darwinismu. Hetta sæst týðiligt í seinnu helvt av Wikipediagreinini:
So quickly did he develop his prescriptions - from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes - that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience and observation required for science.
Lysenko was admitted into the hierarchy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and was put in charge of agricultural affairs. He used his position to denounce biologists as "fly-lovers and people haters," and to decry the "wreckers" in biology, who he claimed were trying to purposely disable the Soviet economy and cause it to fail. Furthermore, he denied the distinction between theoretical and applied biology.
Sær út sum at Lysenkoismu hevur havt eina brádliga uppgongd og yvirtøku táið hesar biologiskar áskoðanir og granskingir longu domineraðu skúlarnarir í Sovjet. Men hvørjar eru so hesar áskoðanir?
Wikipediagreinin hjá Eivind upplýsir okkum at:

Lysenko did not apply actual science. He was a proponent of the ideas of Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, and practiced a form of Lamarckism

Hetta er umtala í eini grein hjá Uranovsky í 1939, har í tilvíst verður til eina nýggja rørðslu, baserða á eitt nú Lamarch, í mótsetur seg tí lívfrøðisgransking í Sovjet sum frammanundan hevur verði ráðandi; hendan nýggja rørðslan er Lysenkoisma og lívfrøðisgranskingin sum verður álopin er eingin onnur enn Darwinisma:

A wave of reaction is rising in biology and beginning to struggle against the main biological achievement of the nineteenth century, Darwinism.
"A salutuary reaction against Darwin's speculations has begun," declares O. Hertwig. "It is necessary to exclude Darwin from the series of scientific theories . . . . Darwinism has perished ingloriously," declares the Kantian Jakob von Uexküll.
The majority of research workers in biology have also, under the pressure of the social conditions of the imperialist epoch, having no knowledge of dialectics, turned towards reactionary philosophy. This turn to reaction in theoretical biology has a different expression. The ranks of the supporters of mechanical materialism have grown thinner, whilst the theoretical biologists, resurrecting the anything but advanced aspects of the teaching of the great investigators of living nature, Lamarck, K. E. von Bar, Johannes Müller, appealing to the shades of Kant, Schelling, Ocken, Mach, etc.,


Hesar mótstríðandi kreftirnar, lívfrøðingarnir, sum Lysenkoisma (í wikipediagreinini) má niðurberja eru tí roknaðir sum darwinistar.

Og Eivind sigur at darwinisma einki hevði at siga í Sovjet, og ikki var á skúlagátt í Sovjet???
Tað sum er so rámandi við hesi Wikipedia greinini sum Eivind gerð nýtslu av, er at greinin fultkommuliga mótstriðir tí sum Eivind vil hava greinina at siga, og verri gerst tað fyri Eivind, at greinin slett ikki grundgevur fyri nøkrum av hansara pástandum. Tildømis sigur greinin onganstaðni at 1) darwinisma einki hevði at siga í Sovjet, 2) greinin sigur ongastaðni at darwinisma ikki var ein týðandi akademisk ávirkan áðrenn Lysenko, 3) greinin sigur ongastaðni at darwinisma ikki var á skúlagátt í Sovjet áðrenn 1964, tvørturímótið; tíðskil er tað høpileyst og óskiljandi at Eivind nýtir hesa wikipediagreinina at grundgeva fyri nøkrum av hansara pástandum.
Men læt okkum bara halda okkum til Wikipedia og viðgera ‘Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen’ ein darwinist og granskara sum bygdi sína vitan og gransking á Darwinismu og sum gjørdist offur fyri Lysenko í 1948, um Schmalhausen veit Wikipedia at siga:
‘Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen was born in Kiev, Russian Empire (now Ukraine) on April 23, 1884 to Luise Schmalhausen (Luisa Ludwigovna Schmalhausen) and Johannes Theodor Schmalhausen (1849–1894). His father was one of the founding fathers of Russian paleobotany.[1]
In 1901 Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen graduated gymnasium and enrolled at Kiev University, but was expelled a year later after taking a part in the student disturbances. In 1902 he resumed his university studies at Kiev. Around 1902 he became acquainted with the founder of the Russian school of evolutionary morphology, Alexey Severtzov (1866–1936). He went on to become Professor of Darwinism at Moscow University and Director of the Institute for Evolutionary Morphology.
Eg havi áður nevnt darwinistarnar báðar M.A. Menzbir og A.N. Severtsov úr einum lista frá 1910-14:
"In the natural sciences, Russia could boast such men as K. A. Timiryazev, then engaged in his immortal research into vegetable photosynthesis; the famousselectionist and geneticist I. V. Michurin, and the Darwinian zoologists M. A. Menzbir and A. N. Severtsov. In the field o
Í hesari Wikipediagreinini hava vit so tveir aðrar darwinistar nevndar við navni: Schmalhausen og Alexey Severtzon. Severtzov var stovnarin av ‘The Russian school of evolutionary morphology’ og Schmalhausen var professari í Darwinismu í Moskva Universitetinum. Vil Eivind enn pástanda at darwinisma ongan leiklut spældi í Sovjet og ikki var innan skúlagátt í Sovjet?
Víðari lesa vit í Wikipediagreinini:
In 1904 Schmalhausen, under the guidance of Severtzov, completed his first scientific work on the embryonic development of lungs in a Grass Snake. He graduated from the university on 1909. He educated many eminent botanists, including Józef Paczoski, the founder of phytosociology.
Í eini aðrari viðger av Schmalhausen, lesa vit at Aleksej og Schmalhausen grundløgdu og leiddu eitt labratorium í Moskva Universitetinum:
The morphological regularities of evolution—A.N., Sewertzoff In 1911 Aleksej N. Sewertzoff was called to the chair in Zoology at Moscow University, where he founded a new laboratory of evolutionary morphology, of which Ivan I. Schmalhausen (see below) became a member. After Sewertzoff’s death on December 19, 1936, Schmalhausen became the new director of the evolutionary morphology institute.
Aftur til Wikipediagreinina lesa vit, at tað var ikki fyrrenn í 1948 at hesin skúlin var afturlatin, har hann og aðrir professarir mistu síni størv. Tíðskil kunnu vit staðfesta, at her er bara eitt dømi uppá, at darwinsima var innan skúlagátt í Sovjet líka til 1948:
In 23 August 1948 he became victim of order 1208, one of a series signed by Minister of Higher Education in the USSR, S. Kaftanov, which led to the mass dismissals of many university professors. This destroyed his career, as it removed his professorship and also decreed that his books and research projects be destroyed. This was because he was accused of being a Weissmannist and pro-Morganist, who promoted the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, at a time when T. D. Lysenko and his followers were emphasising a process of heredity that focused on interaction with the environment and the inheritance of acquired characteristics along Lamarckian lines. This theory was being put into practice in agriculture under Michurin, who claimed to have improved wheat using Lamarckian techniques, and was central to the Stalin's politics which stressed that hard work led to improvement in future generations.
Her uppstendur eitt punkt sum mótstríðir pástandinum hjá Eivind. Ikki bara var Schmalhausen, saman við øðrum professari í darwinistiskari gransking á universitetum í Sovjet, Schmalhausen útgav enntá eina bók um Darwinismu:
He had just written his book Factors of Evolution, which was translated into English and published in the west in 1949 and returned to work in morphology.
In 1955, Schmalhausen was one of the signers of the "Letter of 300" — a collective letter by three hundred scientists denouncingLysenkoism.
He died on October 7, 1963 in Leningrad.


Her vil eg eisini vísa til greinina hjá Richard Levins, sum skrivar:

‘Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen was a Soviet evolutionary biologist working at the Academy of Sciences in Minsk.  In the 1940's his book "Factors of Evolution" appeared and was denounced by T.D. Lysenko, whose neo-Lamarckian theories of genetics were then on the ascendancy. At the close of the 1948 Congress of the Timiryazev Academy of Agricultural Science it was revealed that Stalin had endorsed Lysenko's report to the Congress in which it was affirmed that the environment can alter the hereditary makeup of organisms in a directed way by altering their development. Schmalhausen was one of the few who affirmed his opposition to Lysenko and spent the rest of his life in his laboratory studying fish evolution and morphology.
In the West, Lysenko's views were simply dismissed. But Schmalhausen could not ignore the Lysenko agenda which insisted on a more complex interpenetration of heredity and environment than genetics generally recognized. Along with Marxist and progressive scientists in the west such as C.D. Waddington in the UK, he accepted rather than ignored the challenge. As a result he developed a more sophisticated approach to these interactions which explained the observations of some of the better studies cited by Lysenkoists.’

Schmalhausen var ongantíð avrættaður og helt enntá á í sínari gransking líka til deyða sín í 1955. Tað er tí eingin grunda at pástanda at Lysenko megnaði at útruddað darwinsmuna frá Sovjetiska samfelagnum, og tá Stalin var deyður komu darwinistarnir undan kavið aftur og tóku tað pláss í akademiska sessinum, sum teimum nú einaferð var givið. Uve Hossfeld og Lennart Olssen skriva:

‘After Stalin's death, Lysenko's doctrine lost any influence it might have held in the GDR, the scientific debate had been won by the Darwinists, and Schneider's largely unsuccessful agrobiological suggestions were no longer of any interest.’


Her ein Wikipedia listið við nøvnum og heitum á lívfrøðingum í Sovjet; fleiri av hesum darwinistar, sum góvu frálæru og granskaðu innan skúlagátt:


Vanliga geri eg ikk brúk av Wikipedia, men eftirsum eg ongar aðrar keldur havi um Schmalhausen, helt at eftirsum Eivind gerð sær galt at hesi keldu so kann eg eisini.

Áðrenn Eivind ákærir meg fyri at seta upp eina óerliga søgulýsing um darwinismu í Sovjet og millum teir fyrstu kommunistarnar og marxistarnar, so vil eg heita á Eivind um at skimma ígjøgnum bókina, hjá Alexander Vucinich ‘Darwin in Russian Thought’, sum viðger hópin av russiskum darwinistum, eisini kommunistum, fjepparum av Marx og Lenin, sum leiddu gransking innan skúlagátt í Sovjet, áðrenn 1964, og enntá áðrenn Sovjet var stovna.


Tað eru ein rúgva av bókum um evnið:


Men óansæð hvussu nógv ein roynir at grava seg inn í hetta evnið, so sleppur ein ikki undan tí óvikandi fakta, at Sovjet, líka upp til 1930 var rættuliga gjøgnumsyrga darwinistiskt. Vit kunnu tí ikki stórt annað enn samtykja í at 1) darwinistar grundløgdu eina fjølbroytta vísind í Russlandi longu við endan á 19 øld og frameftir, líka inn í kommunistisku yvirtøkuna, 2) at darwinistar vóru í Sovjet, 3) at nógvir av hesum vóru professarir innan lívfrøðið, 4), at summir av hesum leiddu heilar deildir av gransking á ymiskum universitetum í Sovjet, 5) tó at Lysenko søkti at hesum frá 30unum til mitt í 60unum, so vóru slíkir aktivir í teirra gransking hesi árini, og vóru skjótir at taka ræða aftur, eftir deyða Stalins.

Niðurstøðan má tí verða at Eivind kann ikki grundgeva sín pástand við Wikipedia, bæði tí at Wikipedia ikki hóskar seg sum grundleggjandi fakta og tí at greinin, slett ikki grundgevur fyri pástandi Eivinds. Harnæst verður Eivind afturvístur av tí rúgvuvísa søguliga tilfarið, sum vísa á eitt heilt annað Sovjet enn Eivindsa ‘hugflogisma’ loyvir í honum at fantasera, í hansara roynd at verja menningarlæruna. Fyri tað triðja megnaði eg við Wikipedia, enntá við somu grein sum Eivind gjørdi sær galt av at nýta, at gera pástand Eivinds til einkis.

Var darwinisma innan skúlagátt í Sovjet? Svarið er so avgjørt ja!

Eivind nevndi annars at hann hevði eina aðra góða keldu, nemliga Weekend Avisen…