11.07.2015 Views

Resistance

Resistance

Resistance

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYsimilar p. 31), he has fundamental objections against Rudolf’s contributions,since one of his contributions “basically amounts to a ‘denial ofthe Holocaust’” (p. 28) or because Rudolf “is convinced of the nonexistenceof the […] final solution of the Jewish question” (p. 29). Byso doing the expert witness insinuates – always in the conditional – thatcertain initial hypotheses could possibly be impermissible after all. Heis explicit on p. 12, where he posits that science ought to “agree to aresearch ban” for reasons of “elementary reverence,” if no verifiableevidence at all exists for an allegation. Of course this approach turns themost important basic principle of science upside down that somethingcan be considered as correct only, if it has been proved by verifiableevidence. Raising the expert witness’s statements to a general principlewould lead to this: the less an allegation can be proved, the more indubitableit is and the less it may be scrutinized. Here the expert witnessreveals an evidently anti-scientific attitude, even one that is hostile toscience, which may lie at the roots of his confusion to potentially declarecertain initial assumptions or starting hypotheses as inadmissible.The expert witness has not examined whether the book at issue containsstatements contrary to the principle of a free starting hypothesis.This is not a trivial issue at all, since a considerable part of the literatureabout this topic contains in one way or another exactly such antiscientificdemands for taboos and bans, as if it were a matter of course.3.2. Undetermined outcomeHere it is primarily important whether the authors of the book at issuepermit their results to be prescribed by third persons or with referenceto tradition, paradigms, authorities, dogmas, taboos, societal orlegal expectations and so forth. Of secondary importance is the questionwhether the authors themselves make dogmatic declarations withoutreference to third parties, for instance by declaring certain views ex cathedraas unshakably true, infallible, irrefutable etc. and/or by condemningdoubts as impossible or blasphemous. The expert witness hasnot examined this question. Although he accuses one of the authors of“inflexible dogmatism” (Faurisson, p. 30), he does not do so with referenceto any specific statements in the book at issue.3.3. Substantiation of factual allegationsThe expert witness characterizes “proffering unproven claims” as ahallmark of “unscientific dogmatism” (p. 9) and in contrast to this the297

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!