Wednesday, February 23. 2011
The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On Nyiri on Martyrdom
NYIRI (full posting):
“The basic fact here is that we do not know the facts. There is a police investigation underway which will sooner or later uncover, or not uncover, facts. Then there might be, or not be, court proceedings. Then we will know what the facts, if there are facts, amount to. We have no reason to believe that the Hungarian judicial system is basically or systematically flawed. From a distance, it appears that a group of people who are closely interconnected have some years ago received an abnormally high amount of project sums, with unconvincing research topics. That at least some of those sums were spent in irregular ways might well turn out to be the case. -- I have been the director of the Institute for Philosophical Research between 1995 and 2005. Also, I am a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. My own problem with the Heller group has nothing to do with the present allegations, which might turn out to be untrue, or even true (a nasty alternative). The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria. They maintain it is not. I maintain it is. Obviously the answer here will affect jobs and money. This is the real issue - everything else is a smoke screen, a phoney discussion, and a martyrdom act.”
Quote/commentary on Nyri posting:
The following is posted with permission from a recent email exchange with Professor Nyiri:
NYIRI (Jan 28):End of email exchange.
"Stevan, you are making a bad mistake. You should not protest when not knowing the facts. The facts are not at all unambiguous."HARNAD (Feb 2):NYIRI (Feb 2):
"I am prepared to correct my mistake. Could you please write me the facts?"
"Dear Istvan, the basic fact of course is that we do not know the facts. That is why I suggested that rush action should be halted. There is a police investigation underway which will sooner or later uncover, or not uncover, facts. Then there might be, or not be, court proceedings. Then we will know what the facts, if there are facts, amount to. We have no reason to believe that the Hungarian judicial system is basically or systematically flawed. --- On a less formal level, let me say that clearly a group of people who are closely interconnected have some years ago received an abnormally high amount of project sums, with unconvincing research topics. That at least some of those sums were spent in irregular ways seems to be clear. --- Finally, and this is something you should please not quote: Heller and company are, all contrary appearances notwithstanding, entirely continuous with Rakosi and Kadar. To this day, they are terrorizing Hungarian intellectual life. The issue is whether they will remain in a position to continue to do so. Warm regards, Kr."
NYIRI (Feb 2):
"On second thoughts, you can quote, if you want to, the Rakosi and Kadar bits."
HARNAD:
The reader may wish to compare the end of the posted version of Professor Nyiri's statement with the end of the email version, below [emphasis added]:
NYIRI POSTING (Feb 4):HARNAD:
"My own problem with the Heller group has nothing to do with the present allegations… The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria. They maintain it is not. I maintain it is. Obviously the answer here will affect jobs and money. This is the real issue - everything else is a smoke screen, a phoney discussion, and a martyrdom act."
NYIRI EMAIL (Feb 2):
"Heller and company are, all contrary appearances notwithstanding, entirely continuous with Rakosi and Kadar. To this day, they are terrorizing Hungarian intellectual life. The issue is whether they will remain in a position to continue to do so."
I leave it to the reader to judge the degree to which this sort of thinking is illustrative of the very sad and worrisome "us vs. them" score-settling tendency (stretching back 97 years or beyond, in the view of Professor Hornok) that I described in my opening posting "Bringing It All Out Into the Open."
(I will add only that it is not at all apparent how Professor Nyiri's response -- that he won top points in an impeccable and transparent selection process for a highly interesting and novel research project that was funded and for which he is very proud, no doubt justifiably -- answers Professor Mayer's observation that the size of the funding Professor Nyiri was awarded was no less than any of the "abnormally high amount of project sums" he refers to. But let us agree that bickering about this sort thing is common among rival researchers (COMP) and is clearly not about the high crimes and misdemeanors that we have agreed to call CRIM and about which we are concerned here.)
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I would like to address three points in prof Nyiri's letter.
1. "a group of people who are closely interconnected". False. I was, and I am not interconnected with Heller, Vajda, even Radnoti in the objective sense. True, Radnoti is a relative of mine, but as to the others, if "scientific criteria" apply, I would like to state that Agnes Heller I have met twice in my life, Vajda probably once more, many years ago. In the same terms we have met with prof Nyiri way many more times. He knows best that my views on philosophy are quite different to Heller and Vajda (whom I do respect, me being of different convictions notwithstanding). What is more, the other attacked project leader, Gabor Borbely has not been a member of this "group" even on my level of acquaintance.
2. "abnormally high amount of project sums." False. Prof Nyiri himself should know it better, since he himself received the following grants in the last ten years: from NKFP (the same agency we applied to) HUF 43 m in 2001, Ministry of Informatics and Communication HUF 70 m in 2003. From the other agency OTKA e.g. the philologist Miklos Maroth (vice president of HAS) has received HUF 41,4 m in 2006 (OTKA 44781), for another project in the same year 20,7 m (OTKA 91015), and for a third (again in the same year) 16,7 (no: OTKA 60392). The historian Gyorgy Granasztoi received from NKFP HUF 91 m in 2001. In the same year, also from NKFP Tamas Fricz 41 m, Erno Kulcsar-Szabo in in 2001 82,9, then in 2004 88,2 - to mention only a few randomly selected project grants. For the record: the three-year project of ours was HUF 70,5 m worth in 2005.
3. "The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria." Strange. First, I have not heard of any such public, or scholarly debate in the Hungarian academia. In fact, Nyiri's close ally, Janos Boros organised a conference in honour of Agnes Heller, and edited the volume of essays offered to her. Second, who is "them"? The "group"? Now as I indicated above, I was also listed by the government newspapers as a member of the group attacked. I am quite puzzled now that the principled prof Nyiri silently agrees to associate me with the "group" he characterises as his opponents, since it was him who expressed his satisfaction about my work on a number of occasions.
1. "a group of people who are closely interconnected". False. I was, and I am not interconnected with Heller, Vajda, even Radnoti in the objective sense. True, Radnoti is a relative of mine, but as to the others, if "scientific criteria" apply, I would like to state that Agnes Heller I have met twice in my life, Vajda probably once more, many years ago. In the same terms we have met with prof Nyiri way many more times. He knows best that my views on philosophy are quite different to Heller and Vajda (whom I do respect, me being of different convictions notwithstanding). What is more, the other attacked project leader, Gabor Borbely has not been a member of this "group" even on my level of acquaintance.
2. "abnormally high amount of project sums." False. Prof Nyiri himself should know it better, since he himself received the following grants in the last ten years: from NKFP (the same agency we applied to) HUF 43 m in 2001, Ministry of Informatics and Communication HUF 70 m in 2003. From the other agency OTKA e.g. the philologist Miklos Maroth (vice president of HAS) has received HUF 41,4 m in 2006 (OTKA 44781), for another project in the same year 20,7 m (OTKA 91015), and for a third (again in the same year) 16,7 (no: OTKA 60392). The historian Gyorgy Granasztoi received from NKFP HUF 91 m in 2001. In the same year, also from NKFP Tamas Fricz 41 m, Erno Kulcsar-Szabo in in 2001 82,9, then in 2004 88,2 - to mention only a few randomly selected project grants. For the record: the three-year project of ours was HUF 70,5 m worth in 2005.
3. "The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria." Strange. First, I have not heard of any such public, or scholarly debate in the Hungarian academia. In fact, Nyiri's close ally, Janos Boros organised a conference in honour of Agnes Heller, and edited the volume of essays offered to her. Second, who is "them"? The "group"? Now as I indicated above, I was also listed by the government newspapers as a member of the group attacked. I am quite puzzled now that the principled prof Nyiri silently agrees to associate me with the "group" he characterises as his opponents, since it was him who expressed his satisfaction about my work on a number of occasions.
EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)
Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA)
Quicksearch
Syndicate This Blog
Materials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
Videos:
audio WOS
Wizards of OA -
audio U Indiana
Scientometrics -
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
Archives
Calendar
|
May '21 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Categories
Blog Administration
Statistics
Last entry: 2018-09-14 13:27
1129 entries written
238 comments have been made