Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYthis includes everything that is to be regarded by content and formas a serious attempt to determine the truth. […]It is not permissible to deny a work to be scientific just because ithas a bias and gaps or because it does not consider opposing viewpointsadequately. […] It is removed from the realm of science onlyif it fails the claim to be scientific not only in singular instances oraccording to the definition of specific schools but systematically.This is especially then the case if the work is not directed toward thepursuit of truth, but merely lends the appearance of scientific inclinationor provability to preconceived notions or results. An indicatorof this can be the systematic neglect of facts, sources, views, andresults that oppose the author’s view. In contrast to that it is notenough that the scientific nature of a work is denied during intrascientificcontroversies between different substantive or methodicaldirections.”This does not sound too bad, actually, and with this decision theConstitutional High Court did indeed bar the Federal Assessment Agencyfrom banning said book. However, I will not leave it at this uncriticalquote but will look at the passage more closely. As a background let memention that I wanted to include this quote in the English edition of myLectures in its entirety. Yet by translating it into English, the old wisdomwas confirmed once more that a translator often comprehends agiven text better than the author. In translation, the entire first paragraphappeared most peculiar, and on closer inspection it turned out that theCourt, in circuitous sentences, said in principle only that science enjoysprotection of “freedom of science” then, if it is science. That is a classicaltautology. Or in other, more familiar words: here the ConstitutionalHigh Court has produced a lot of hot air.In contrast to that, those statements of the verdict not directed at thework at issue but at the alleged features of the author are a much greatercause for concern, be it in a positive sense when it speaks of a “seriousattempt to determine the truth” or in a negative sense when it claimsthat the effort is not “directed at determining the truth” or that merely“preconceived opinions or results” are to be confirmed. This is so becauseefforts, attempts, and prejudices are all features of the author andnot 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