Rhetorically speaking, populism is nothing more than weird argumentation. The classical example of populists is sophists. Populism can be compared with a tactic in a verbal battle. It should not be understood as a very intellectual device to the end. Established scientists also resort to populism. It acts overall disarmingly on the part of "epistocrats", or authoritative rhetoricians. The lack of consensus on worldview issues gives a ground for populism and data manipulation. For example, the background of the Montreal Protocol was that evidence of ozon pollution by CFCs was initially disputed by chemical industry practitioners. Populist views in science are articulated by anti-vaxxers and opponents of climate change, among whom there are few professional scientists. They unite in social groups that gain popularity due to critical opinions and distrust to representatives of science that are found in society. Political civil movements often use populist tactics, and public problems can be articulated without the development of scientific programs aimed at solving them. An example is the Occupy movement in the US or anti-corruption protests in Russia. But expression of personal and public dissatisfaction with social problems is not something anti-intellectual and extraordinary. Populism is not always wrong, more often it is unsubstantiated and based on what is evident in the eyes of public opinion. At the end of 2022, in China, demonstrators took to the streets with white sheets of paper instead of posters, protesting not only against the harsh anti-COVID measures, but also against the means of surveillance for population and censorship which are used by local authorities to control citizens. And those "slogans" were understandable! Populism as a social phenomenon receives diverse assessment from political experts: they say it destroys democracy (K. Roberts, K. Weyland, S. Lewicki, K. Hawkins, W. Patzelt, G. Collins, R. Evans), and is its manifestation (F. Decker, T. Tannsjo, T. Akkerman, T. Pappas). However, a fundamental difference remains between civic and scientific movements, at least from the fact that lack of evidence is nonsense for any movement in science, but a right strategy for populism in politics, depending on the psychology of electorate. If populism is justified as a tactical trick, it is not an acceptable strategy in politics, and, even more, not a platform for scientific integration.
