The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On Vancsó on Smoke Screens

VANCSO (Full Posting):
“Fiscal accountability belongs to standard practices of science: scientists who use taxpayers money are responsible to the society for the use of the funds they receive for the purpose they were funded. Fraud must be unveiled, criminal practices must be prosecuted. It is the right of the society to probe whether the funds were used in an appropriate manner. It is the responsibility of legal entities to provide justice and prosecute (or acquit) those who violate the law. A group of international scientists launched an initiative in support of a group of Hungarian philosophers to interfere in a Hungarian inquiry related to possible abuse of public funds. In addition to fund abuse, criminal charges related to fraud and tax evasion are also considered. The authors of the initiative consider the allegations politically motivated and believe that these lack substance. In an open letter the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HUS) was requested to "take a prompt, prominent and uneqivocal public position in support of the research and researchers thus attacked...". This requests nothing less than jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice. Those, who know the situation best, i.e. the resident Members of the HUS, were not addressed assuming that in their homeland they might be prosecuted when they make their opinion heard. This is a ridiculous and politically loaded assumption. Meanwhile an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum. As external HUS member I urged the authors to withdraw their letter, and remain factual as opposed to arguing by using pompous rhetoric and hide the facts behind a smokescreen of general academic principles to which all scientists of stature subscribe. In my opinion they should wait for the outcome of the inquiries as if the accused have nothing to fear, justice will surely be provided. The group of the accused philosophers believe that they have been harrassed. The use of the harrassment argument may provide a smokescreen to divert the attention from the facts. The questions are whether the law was broken, and whether the fiscal responsibility of principal scientists has been abused. I pointed out that the open letter lacked facts. I believe that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts. Professor Daniel Dennett, a world leading philosopher and one of the three signatories of the open letter meanwhile withdrew his signature as he recognized that he is not in the possession of enough information which would allow him to lend his name to this action. But do we have enough information? Has public money been abused? Has the law been broken? Has a group of scholars abused their influence? Let's see what the results of the inquiry will tell. Meanwhile my advise is for all those who support this initiative to remain professional, and stick to the facts, for ugly and polarized accusations surely will not help to unveil the truth.”

---

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
COMP/MOOT/CRIM & PRO/DEN
HARNAD:
I would like to suggest that we all use some abbreviations marking important distinctions that will make this discussion easier for observers to follow and understand:

The allegations against the philosophers are of three fundamentally different kinds that need to be carefully distinguished. The first kind – “COMP” (for complaints) -- consists of the kinds of generic allegations that researchers everywhere often make about one another’s funding and about the funding system (the allotments were unfair, the system was unfair, etc.). The second kind – “CRIM” (for crimes) -- alleges that either rules or laws have been broken by the philosophers in question. The third kind – “MOOT” (for moot) – alleges that there were egregious practices by the philosophers in question – practices against which there should have been rules or laws, but those rules and laws do not yet exist, and did not exist at the time.

If the reader does not keep clearly in mind the distinctions among generic and systemic complaints (COMP), allegations of practices that ought to be criminalized (MOOT) and allegations of criminality (CRIM), it will be impossible to follow the discussion or draw any coherent conclusion.

At those polarized points in the discussion where the COMP/MOOT/CRIM distinction is particularly crucial, let us call the two contending sides “PRO” (for proponents of criminal allegations [CRIM] against the philosophers) and “DEN” (for deniers of CRIM allegations against the philosophers).
It is the contention of PRO that the accused philosophers have committed crimes (CRIM) and that the deniers (DEN) are biased in favor of the accused, and trying to obstruct justice.

It is the contention of DEN that no crimes (CRIM) have been committed by the accused philosophers, but, rather -- for undisclosed reasons, suspected to be a government policy of retribution against its predecessor government’s corruption and selective harassment of its current critics – COMP and MOOT have been systematically escalated by PRO into allegations of crime (CRIM) against the accused philosophers.

In commenting and responding, it will be a great help if everyone identifies clearly when they are speaking of COMP, MOOT or CRIM (and, where relevant, whether their own position is PRO or DEN regarding CRIM in particular).

---

Quote/Commentary on Vancso posting:

VANCSO:
“Fiscal accountability belongs to standard practices of science: scientists who use taxpayers money are responsible to the society for the use of the funds they receive for the purpose they were funded.”

HARNAD:
It is important for everyone to note that all sides – both PRO and DEN – agree on this point. The inadequacy of the current funding system and the need for reform are not a point of disagreement.

(1) Research funding requires a system of reliable, rigorous accountability, to make sure that funds are properly used, in accordance with explicit funding rules and procedures, as well as with the law of the land.

(2) If the rules and procedures and/or the methods of auditing and accountability of the previous government’s funding system were inadequate (as everyone agrees they were) then that system of rules and procedures and its methods of auditing and accountability need to be reformed. And if the prior law of the land was not adequate, then that too must be changed.

(3) But what is a first fundamental point of disagreement between PRO and DEN is that, if the prior system's rules and procedures and its methods of auditing and accountability were indeed inadequate and in need of reform (as everyone agrees they were) then what is needed is to reform the system, not to seek retroactive retribution against an arbitrarily targeted subset of scholars to avenge the fact that the prior system was inadequate.

(4) The second fundamental point of disagreement between PRO and DEN is that if retrospective recriminations and retribution are to take priority over reform, then that retribution can only be done even-handedly: That means that either a systematic total audit must be done of all prior funding under the old system in the time-frame in question (the past ten years) -- or at least the systematic audit of a blind random sample -- to identify whether and which research projects have either violated the old rules or broken the existing laws (CRIM).

(5) What is in no way acceptable or justifiable is to single out a handful of funded research projects a priori -- for whatever a priori reason, and certainly not COMP or MOOT reasons – for selective allegations of CRIM and selective investigations of CRIM -- without first having done a systematic and even-handed prior comparison with the rest of the research funded under the old system to see whether any egregious cases really emerge.

(6) For if all or most or even many of the funded research projects during this period show the same symptoms of the inadequacy of the current funding system, then selectively singling out the accused – merely on COMP or MOOT grounds – is merely arbitrary scape-goating and harassment.

VANCSO:
“Fraud must be unveiled, criminal practices must be prosecuted.”

HARNAD:
Yes indeed, but has fraud (CRIM) been demonstrated? Has criminality been proven? Are these not rather strong words to be used when nothing has been proven and the only thing that seems certain is that the rules and procedures and the auditing and answerability of the existing funding system were inadequate? Performing in accordance with the rules and procedures and the auditing and answerability of an inadequate system (whether COMP or MOOT) is not synonymous with CRIM.

And if the presumption is that there have indeed been significant violations of the existing rules and procedures of the existing (inadequate) system during the time period in question (CRIM), then on what basis have the 5-6 accused philosophers in particular been singled out for this presumption?

Violations (if any) of the existing rules and procedures (CRIM) of an inadequate system could have been frequent or rare or anything in between. The way to find out is through a systematic audit (total or blind/random), across all funded fields.

VANCSO:
“It is the right of the society to probe whether the funds were used in an appropriate manner.”

HARNAD:
This is indisputably true, PRO and DEN both agree on it, and if it had been decided to do an exhaustive retroactive audit of all research projects funded during the decade in question – or even a blind random sample across projects and fields – no one could or would have cried foul, either at the audit or the outcome (if the outcome was that some projects had either broken rules or the law [CRIM], whereas many or most had not).

It is a pragmatic question whether -- after 10 years of implementing a funding system whose rules and procedures, and methods of accountability, were inadequate -- the best use of time and funds is to do a total retroactive audit in order to find and punish prior infractions, or rather to channel efforts into designing and implementing a reformed funding system, with clear rules and procedures, and rigorous methods of ongoing auditing and accountability.

But whether the decision is for proactive reform or retroactive retribution, the methods have to be fair and unbiased. Singling out a handful of philosophers for selective scrutiny, with no population baseline for comparison, is at best an ad hoc fishing expedition and at worst ad hominem harassment.

VANCSO:
“It is the responsibility of legal entities to provide justice and prosecute (or acquit) those who violate the law.”

HARNAD:
Undisputed. This is not the subject of disagreement.

VANCSO:
“A group of international scientists launched an initiative in support of a group of Hungarian philosophers to interfere in a Hungarian inquiry related to possible abuse of public funds.”

HARNAD:
If the initiative in question here is the Open Letter -- by External and Honorary members of the Hungarian Academy of Science asking the President to support the accused philosophers and oppose those accusing them of unproven wrongdoing -- it is not at all clear why Professor Vancso describes this as interference in a legal inquiry.

If public accusations (PRO) of criminality (CRIM) against the philosophers by the press and public officials (including the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) are not interfering with any legal inquiry, then how are public statements in their defense (DEN) doing so?

Is it not reasonable to ask why the inquiry was directed at this group of philosophers? what the basis for the selection and comparison was? and why the outcome is being pre-judged and the accused being vilified in the Government-supported press when there has been no factual or juridical outcome

VANCSO:
“In addition to fund abuse, criminal charges related to fraud and tax evasion are also considered.”

HARNAD:
Charges (CRIM) are easy to make, but what is the evidence, and what is the verdict? Under Hungary's tax laws (I am told), it is currently legal (MOOT) and widely done (among laymen, professionals and researchers alike) for individuals to receive income in private corporations that are taxed at lower rates than personal income. That sounds like one of the laws worth reforming.

But it is not at all clear why these philosophers been singled out to be charged with this, since it is so widespread, and ostensibly legal (MOOT). Was a systematic audit done, and these philosophers turned out to be the only practitioners, or among the few? Or is the practice common, and they were singled out to be accused of it for another reason?

VANCSO:
“The authors of the initiative consider the allegations politically motivated and believe that these lack substance. In an open letter the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HUS) was requested to ‘take a prompt, prominent and uneqivocal public position in support of the research and researchers thus attacked...’. This requests nothing less than jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice.”

HARNAD:
It is not at all clear why claiming that crimes (CRIM) have been committed and proven (as is already repeatedly being done in this Forum) is not "jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice" (PRO) whereas saying they have not (DEN), is.

VANCSO:
“Those, who know the situation best, i.e. the resident Members of the HUS, were not addressed assuming that in their homeland they might be prosecuted when they make their opinion heard. This is a ridiculous and politically loaded assumption.”

HARNAD:
The Open Letter is an Open Letter, and of course Internal members are free to co-sign. They were not explicitly invited in order not to put them on the spot, one way or the other. Surely this point is not difficult to understand.

VANCSO:
“Meanwhile an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum. As external HUS member I urged the authors to withdraw their letter, and remain factual as opposed to arguing by using pompous rhetoric and hide the facts behind a smokescreen of general academic principles to which all scientists of stature subscribe. In my opinion they should wait for the outcome of the inquiries as if the accused have nothing to fear, justice will surely be provided. The group of the accused philosophers believe that they have been harrassed. The use of the harrassment argument may provide a smokescreen to divert the attention from the facts. The questions are whether the law was broken, and whether the fiscal responsibility of principal scientists has been abused. I pointed out that the open letter lacked facts. I believe that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts.”

HARNAD:
The defenders against the accusations (DEN) certainly share Professor Vancso's belief that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts. But it is unfortunately not at all clear that the promulgators of the accusations themselves (PRO) share that belief.

I am not sure what Professor Vancso means by "an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum" (if by forum he means the exchange of emails among the signatories of the Open Letter. Professor Vancso wrote his own response to the Open Letter on the day it was sent (January 28), branching it to the first 3 signatories and the President of the Academy, and to my knowledge, the only other communication was my invitation to him (on February 5) to post his views to ScienceInsider (which he has now kindly done, for which many thanks!).

But what was the “emotional discussion”? Is Professor Vancso referring to the present forum (ScienceInsider?) (Perhaps there was another series of email exchanges to which not everyone on Professor Vancso’s original CC list was privy?)

Apart from this, I would add that it is indeed true, quite symmetrically, that both the PRO and DEN lack facts. However, there is also an asymmetry that is not being very conscientiously acknowledged: the presumption of innocence until/unless guilt is proven. Already several who have posted to ScienceInsider have illustrated how confidently one can pass from acknowledging that no one knows whether crimes have been committed at all, to speaking of the obviousness of the crimes (CRIM) -- indeed the long history of crimes -- of the accused.

There is no smokescreen of "general academic principles" here (are principles smokescreens?): It is not known that anyone has committed any crime. Hence the only question is, why are so many people speaking about CRIM in connection with the philosophers in question? Why were they singled out? And why is there this polarization between PRO and DEN when everyone (including the Academy) should be taking the side of presumptive innocence until/unless facts prove otherwise

VANCSO:
“Professor Daniel Dennett, a world leading philosopher and one of the three signatories of the open letter meanwhile withdrew his signature as he recognized that he is not in the possession of enough information which would allow him to lend his name to this action. But do we have enough information? Has public money been abused? Has the law been broken? Has a group of scholars abused their influence? Let's see what the results of the inquiry will tell. Meanwhile my advise is for all those who support this initiative to remain professional, and stick to the facts, for ugly and polarized accusations surely will not help to unveil the truth.”

HARNAD:
Again, there is no disagreement at all that ugly and polarized accusations will not help unveil the truth. But let us not forget that the only accused ones are the philosophers in question, and they are accused of having committed crimes (CRIM); those ugly and polarized accusations against them are coming from their accusers (PRO); and the other side is defending (DEN) from them. Unlike the accused philosophers, no one is being accused (let alone prosecuted) of a crime by the defenders. (Please let us not confuse the fact that (1) the two sides, PRO and DEN, do not always have the most flattering opinion of one another with (2) accusations of crime [CRIM].)

My own guess (but Professor Vancso can correct me on this) is that the "emotional discussion" to which Professor Vancso refers was in fact the "torrent of messages both condemning and supporting" his having signed the Open Letter that eventually persuaded Dan Dennett – the kindest and fairest of men, someone I love and admire, and to whom I am greatly indebted personally -- to ask me to transmit to the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences the message that "I simply do not know enough about the specific issues to have a responsible opinion about how the principles enunciated in the letter, to which I do fully subscribe, should be applied in this situation... I must withdraw my signature in order not to be drawn into this polarized atmosphere." (The resultant emotion in the PRO press all the ensuing week was jubilation! The polarized atmosphere is now on display here.)

My hope is that the ScienceInsider forum will show that when it comes to taking sides between accusing (PRO) of crime (CRIM) and defending against accusations of crime (DEN), the truth is not necessarily in the middle.

But first we need a few more iterations of this discussion to get all the prima facie allegations (COMP, MOOT and CRIM) (and the motives for making them) out into the open.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum