Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
this includes everything that is to be regarded by content and form
as a serious attempt to determine the truth. […]
It is not permissible to deny a work to be scientific just because it
has a bias and gaps or because it does not consider opposing viewpoints
adequately. […] It is removed from the realm of science only
if it fails the claim to be scientific not only in singular instances or
according to the definition of specific schools but systematically.
This is especially then the case if the work is not directed toward the
pursuit of truth, but merely lends the appearance of scientific inclination
or provability to preconceived notions or results. An indicator
of this can be the systematic neglect of facts, sources, views, and
results that oppose the author’s view. In contrast to that it is not
enough that the scientific nature of a work is denied during intrascientific
controversies between different substantive or methodical
directions.”
This does not sound too bad, actually, and with this decision the
Constitutional High Court did indeed bar the Federal Assessment Agency
from banning said book. However, I will not leave it at this uncritical
quote but will look at the passage more closely. As a background let me
mention that I wanted to include this quote in the English edition of my
Lectures in its entirety. Yet by translating it into English, the old wisdom
was confirmed once more that a translator often comprehends a
given text better than the author. In translation, the entire first paragraph
appeared most peculiar, and on closer inspection it turned out that the
Court, in circuitous sentences, said in principle only that science enjoys
protection of “freedom of science” then, if it is science. That is a classical
tautology. Or in other, more familiar words: here the Constitutional
High Court has produced a lot of hot air.
In contrast to that, those statements of the verdict not directed at the
work at issue but at the alleged features of the author are a much greater
cause for concern, be it in a positive sense when it speaks of a “serious
attempt to determine the truth” or in a negative sense when it claims
that the effort is not “directed at determining the truth” or that merely
“preconceived opinions or results” are to be confirmed. This is so because
efforts, attempts, and prejudices are all features of the author and
not of the work. The following questions necessarily arise:
How does one determine whether someone is serious?
How does one determine to what end an act is or is not directed?
93