2019 年 28 巻 2 号 p. 115-133
The theory of relativity was received favorably in Russia and the USSR, primarily by mathematicians, but it was opposed by some specialists in classical physics, mechanics, and electrical engineering. Since the 1920s, with the establishment of Marxist‒Leninist philosophy as a state ideology, a new phenomenon ̶ ideological pressure on science, has arisen. Ideological arguments were actively used by incompetent scientists (A.K. Timiryazev, V.F. Mitkevich, A.A. Maksimov, and others) against modern physics. A number of major Marxist philosophers (B.M. Hessen, S.Yu. Semkovskii), and leading physicists (S.I. Vavilov, V.A. Fock, M.A. Markov) interpreted dialectical materialism in accordance with modern scientific theories. S.I. Vavilov in his reports of 1949 on the philosophy of physics emphasized the influence and even the primacy of physics in relation to philosophy (thereby challenging Engels' thesis on the leading role of philosophy), the independence of scientific achievements from philosophical views of scientists, and interpreted the laws of dialectics in a form acceptable for physicists ("unity in oppositeness"). These Vavilov's reports were recognized in the inner-party documents as ideologically erroneous and were fully published only recently. Since the mid-1950s "peaceful coexistence" of ideology and science has been established. However, the traditional description of philosophical and ideological pressure on science just in black and white is incorrect. From the point of view of modern science, it can be seen that in several cases philosophical criticism was positive ̶ in those cases when it was directed to concordance the form of physical knowledge and its essence. However, philosophers at that time could not present their arguments in the language understandable for physicists, and physicists, because of the traditional sacralization of the form of physical theories, mistakenly believed that the essence of modern physical theories was criticized by incompetent philosophers. So the ideological discussions were not fruitful.
