1. The Need of New Approaches - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
believe that, on the basis of your standing in the scientific community and in the public eye, you are in a position to
stimulate a free public discussion on scientific freedom in the field of theoretical physics.”
187 / 2002-10-29 - Prof. Karl-Otto HONDRICH c/o Fachbereich 03, Inst. f. Gesellschafts- u. Politikanalyse.
Frankfurt a. M. CD-ROM 1.1 (Copy No.: 164)
Extract:
“We believe that, on the basis of your standing in the scientific community and in the public eye, you are in a
position to stimulate a free public discussion on scientific freedom in the field of theoretical physics. After reading
your “Phänomenologie des politischen Skandals” [Phenomenology of the Political Scandal] we take the view that
the four “stages” described by you, in terms of which a scandal develops and concludes, can also be applied to
scientific and political scandals (in this case in the field of theoretical physics) which you do not treat, but for which
we can give you a classic example:
1st Stage. The moral failure we can attribute to wrongful suppression and defamation of every bit of criticism of
a certain theory.
2nd Stage. The unmasking is provided by our documentation, a general acquaintance with which we see to by
sending out private copies until this function can be taken over by publication via a publishing house or by
discussion in our investigative press.
3rd Stage. As far as the indignation of the public is concerned, here we will have to wait until the 2nd stage has
been completed. Our indignation has already been recorded in the form of the documentation.
4th Stage. As for the gathering of the harvest, and the satisfaction on account of the collective feelings raised,
this is something we are unfortunately still far from experiencing.
We could therefore imagine that the scandalous topic raised by us might perhaps interest you, especially since
in one passage of your book you come very close to touching on our subject matter (p. 106):
“The constitutional state too is always subject to the temptation to entice its pampered children, particularly
the scientific elite performers, with privileges, sinecures and discretionary offers to entice them into clandestine
grey areas of experimentation in which the sense of humanity and justice of the citizens would be agitated - if they
knew what was taking place.”
In conclusion we would just like to vary one point of your scandal theory (p. 72): that the belief that scandals
can heal the negative “must however be rejected”. This may well often be the case, but it is no brazen law. Indeed,
we can well imagine that a reintroduction of scientific freedom in the field of theoretical physics would promote
more than just the criticism of the theory and even permit new developments that had been previously obstructed.
In this we would see considerable “healing”.”
188 / 2002-10-30 - Prof. Alexander S. KEKULÉ c/o Inst. f. Medizinische Mikrobiologie. Halle (Saale).
CD-ROM 1.1 (Copy No.: 165)
Extract:
“Our documentation proves for the first time that the strong tradition of criticism of the theory since 1908, right
up to the present day, has not become known to the public due to the consequent suppression and defamation of
every bit of criticism, and that the criticism made has not been refuted. For this reason the special theory of
relativity is unfoundedly presented to the public as a best-proven theory, which could obviously only be claimed
after the successful refutation of the criticism made of it. Our documentation shows, in Chapter 2, approx. 130
theoretical errors that have not even been discussed by the relativists because they have prevented the reception of
the critical publications. What has not been discussed cannot be regarded as refuted. (...)
We respectfully request that you check the soundness of our documentation and, in the event of a positive result
of this examination, that you make the problems brought to light in our documentation available to a wider public
in the context of your journalistic possibilities. Our documentation possibly has news value for the public, so that
the present first version of the documentation may already constitute legitimate subject matter for reporting. We
believe that, on the basis of your standing in the scientific community and in the public eye, you are in a position to
stimulate a free public discussion on scientific freedom in the field of theoretical physics. (...)
We have read your article in TAGESSPIEGEL, 2.10.02, on the swindle by Mr. Schön with interest, as well as
your NZZ article in the Internet. Your plea that self-control is insufficient is supported by the experiences of the
critics of the theorists in the field of theoretical physics. And your following interpretation also applies unaltered to
relativity:
“Almost every researcher knows of cases in which a result was not reproducible or had been presented in a
manner that was not quite correct. To broach the matter with a colleague already means breaking a taboo in the
58
G. O. Mueller: STR 2012