EN
In this paper I offer an analysis of works by Czech author Vlastimil Vondruška famous for his popular criminal stories and novels with historical background framed by a debate on populism and the rise of iliberal political trends in central Europe. My point of interest is the way how can an author who explicitly expresses populist notion of people vs. elites distinction use the academic authority and expertise respectively. Analysing Vondruška’s both fiction and his non-fiction books I trace the contradictory position that he advocates. On one side he criticizes academics and academia in general as a corrupted field that is pushed only by pecuniary and selfish motivations. On the other side he uses scientific and expert authority in case of his characters and his public activity to comment on topical issues. I argue that this contradiction is not only caused by false use of arguments and facts but that it is a case of the liar’s paradox, which I believe is a major attribute of populist discourse. In the conclusion, I discuss how historians have responded to Vondruška’s wide popularity in Czech public both as an author of fiction and as a commentator using historical analogies. I argue that it is not enough to merely criticize false arguments and misleading facts, nor it is sufficient to argue against the values and beliefs that they advocate. I believe that we need to change our understanding of relation between science and society from linear paradigm of “popular science” to more complex, participatory conception of socially engaged science that can address the populist challenges we face today