Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYtion logically impossibly, is grossly unscientific, as it is thusly immunizedagainst any attempt at refutation.It therefore can, indeed it has to be concluded that the following isthe reason why the expert witness has not investigated these essentialaspects of the nature of science (or maybe he is not even aware ofthem?): because he himself is part of this established unscientific attitude.Finally one would have wished that the expert witness had given hisexpert report a systematic structure – this, too, is a hallmark of science!– for instance by initially explaining in a substantiated way, which criteriaof the nature of science he considers relevant, in order to then usethem as a yardstick to assess the individual contributions of the book atissue.C. ConclusionsThe expert witness– has essentially missed the topic of his assignment for an expert report,because some 2 / 3 of his expert report do not address the topic ofhis assignment;– has transgressed the area of competence as an expert by commentingon topics for which he is not an expert according to his own statementsor which even originate from utterly foreign disciplines;– has not performed his assignment professionally by omitting essentialaspects of his assignment for an expert report – various criteriaof the nature of science – and by repeatedly and at times in a massiveway violating scientific principles himself.Hence both the expert report and the expert witness have to be rejectedas utterly unsuitable pieces of evidence.Germar Rudolf, Heidelberg, 24 February 2007PostscriptumThe above verdict is harsh. It may even be unfair, for Prof. Dr. ErnstNolte did not write his expert assessment of “my” book for the isolateduse of a few judges looking for an expert opinion on the nature of scienceand how my book fits into it. Prof. Nolte was well aware that hisexpert report would eventually end up in the public domain, and that303