When he met with the young musicians he would tell them they were playing with fiddles that looked like violins and violas.
They would also be taught how to play along with a fiddle instead of a violin.
‘He had a very good understanding’
Ivan Ivanov was born and brought up in Moscow.
When he was 7 he joined the prestigious Krasnoyarsk ballet company.
When he was 11 he won the top prize in the annual ballet competition and the title of national ballet hero.
He said: “Before my death I was working hard to prepare for the next dance of the national dance hall.
“But I never was able to see the national dance hall. It’s a special honour for a dancer to compete in the national dance hall.
“I had several years to live. I had a difficult time at that time.
I always wanted to dance the national dance.”
Image copyright RIA-Novosti
‘I was lucky’
In 2001, Ivan Ivanov won the Grand Prix of the Moscow Ballet.
At 21, he was awarded the Russian national ballet gold medal with the title of national fiddler of the year.
He also finished second to a young Russian ballet legend, Evgeny Tsoi.
“I was so happy,” he said.
“I was born for this dance – for this great event.
“I felt as if I was one of the best fiddlers, and so it is no wonder that I am alive to enjoy a new golden age of the state and public sphere.”
He died peacefully at his home in the Tver region this month.
This post is about the role that science and rationality play in public discourse. It is not about the role of science or rationality in science communication.
There’s a tendency in debates over scientific and scientific-sounding claims to overstate how much evidence there is to support them. And I often see science and rationality misrepresented in this regard. This is especially true of a certain class of arguments, the “is X a credible evidence?” form of the rhetorical trick. In this post, I discuss several of these arguments and try to clarify why they are misleading but I also recognize their usefulness to other areas of public discourse.
Science and rationality are important aspects of public discourse, but the “is X a credible evidence?” form of