← Back to Articles | Original (German)
Anyone who deals with controversial issues in research chooses specific search terms in library catalogs. Words in the title such as: polemic, reply, or rejoinder [sic!], reply, attack, argument, statement or defense often open up human depths that one would not expect from the intellectual elite. The pattern is almost always identical: Researcher A publishes a paper - usually in a specialist journal. Researcher B reads the paper, disagrees with it and writes a counter-statement - usually in the same journal. Occasionally there is a response.
There have been numerous examples of this almost classic pattern in all areas of science since the 19th century. Some, however, self-publish their point of view at their own expense without any editorial restrictions. When it comes to (scientific) honor, courts have also been involved. Some disputes were discussed publicly in the media.
Anyone who thinks that opposing opinions are necessarily tied to different research locations is wrong. Surprisingly often, scientific opponents can be found in the same house or institute. A look at the 19th century. Place of action: the noble Rasumofsky Palace, headquarters of the k.k. Geological Reichsanstalt (today part of GeoSphere Austria) in Vienna Landstrasse. The two parties Edmund von Mojsisovics (1839 to 1907), full name, Johann August Edmund Mojsisovics Edler von Mojsvár, Viennese noble origin and real member of the Academy of Sciences on the one hand and Alexander Bittner (1850 to 1902) on the other side. Eleven years his junior, he was born in Bohemia, studied in Vienna and found fault with a lot of his colleague's research. Specifically, it was about the temporal subdivision of the Triassic deposits (251.9 to 201.4 million years) within the Mesozoic period. Although opposing views during their lifetimes, both have enduring merits that endure in the 21st century.
Bittner had different views than Mojsisovics. He saw himself in the right and between 1893 and 1900 published no less than nine (!) self-financed polemics, the tone of which became increasingly negative. Franz Tatzreiter, who dealt with Bittner's biography in 2003, said: "Unfortunately, from around 1892 onwards, the professional discussions grew more and more into a personal dispute and ultimately into an incredible polemic between Alexander Bittner and Edmund von Mojsisovics."
It led to Bittner questioning his opponent's scientific work per se. Accordingly, he titled his pamphlets: "Mr. E. v. Mojsisovics and public morality" or "The credibility of Mr. E. v. Mojsisovics illuminated from Munich." (1899).
The person being attacked also defended himself, but only with one text: "For defense against Dr. Alexander Bittner" (1898). Here he discussed his own fallibility: "As often as I recognized an error that had been committed, I always and without hesitation corrected it myself." He frankly confessed: "I only read the first of Bittner's writings, and of the following ones, which appeared in the publications of the Geological Reichsanstalt, I only cursorily leafed through them and, after I had gained an insight into the animous presentation, immediately put them aside again."
Franz Tatzreiter sums up: "At first glance, it seems completely incomprehensible that MOJSISOVICS assumes bad intentions and a system of concealment, lies and suppression of scientific views and that Bittner therefore denied him any morality." The dispute only came to an end with Bittner's death on March 31, 1902.
The use of dowsing rods, particularly in the search for raw material deposits and water, has a long tradition. Geological experts were always suspicious given the false and irreproducible statements made by dowsers. More than 100 years ago, the Prussian Geological State Institute under its President Franz Beyschlag sought scientific proof and invited dowsers: "Since a scientific justification of the dowsing rod effect from which one could draw conclusions about the usability and reliability of the rod is completely missing - every dowser has his own hypothesis, which cannot withstand any physical criticism - the only thing left to practically clarify the question is experimentation." But the dowsers' interest in taking part in the experiment was very limited. In December 1920 only three came to solve specific tasks. The aim was to define the distribution of a salt deposit known to geologists. The result was sobering: "All three have very different results and large numbers of salt rashes in salt-free areas. There is no relationship to the actual distribution of the salt dome."
At the same time, the Austrian State Geological Service, which had a user of dowsing rods among its employees in the form of Lukas Scales (1877 to 1959), a geologist with a doctorate, also took an official position. The statement "State Geologists and Dowsing Rods" written by Bruno Sander (1884 to 1979), an employee of the house, was based on precisely this fact ("Rod-technical activities in the institution staff") and was signed by the majority of the geologists. They hereby affirmed "to openly move away from the rod technique instead of involuntarily serving to authenticate it."
Two, Hermann Vetters (1880 to 1941) and Heinrich Beck (1880 to 1979), gave an additional clarification "To explain": "Where I cannot detect anything using geological examination methods, and even easy-to-carry artificial outcrops are not sufficient, I remain neutral towards the information provided by the dowser; where I have geological observations, I consider these against the information provided by the dowser; where I see that the dowser consciously or unconsciously misled, I fight his statements."
Finally, on January 12, 1921, Lukas balances, who often resorted to dowsing, gave his “declaration.” He took a stand for science: "It is absolutely necessary, in the interest of the national economy, that the information provided by dowsers is checked by geologists before exploration work begins." He only gave the dowser a certain amount of authority if there was a lack of professional expertise: "if science cannot provide further information, [the geologist must] entrust the guidance to the dowser."
So much for the three variants of a negative attitude towards dowsing rods within the then Geological State Institute (today GeoSphere Austria), which failed to communicate ONE (!) common point of view at the time. Seen from another perspective, the three views also represent diversity of opinions.
While today the northern Vienna Basin is considered the country's most important oil region, which is primarily due to the discovery of the Matzen field in 1949, the late 1920s were characterized by hopes and speculations. Oil was discovered for the first time in 1912 in the northernmost part of the Vienna Basin, in Egbell, Slovakia, and was also mined in 1914. However, when it came to the domestic territory, Franz In mid-March 1927, several newspapers printed Schaffer's opinion, who denied oil deposits in the Vienna Basin.
Libran countered a week later under the title: "Epilogue to the Vienna Petroleum War" as follows: "The view that the Vienna Basin must be viewed as an oil-prone area has been common knowledge among almost all Austrian geologists for more than 10 years." And addressed Schaffer specifically: "Schaffer has a view on this question that is unlikely to be shared by any other geologist and that can only be understood psychologically." (Reichspost, March 24, 1927).
In May 1928, Weisen and Schaffer had another media exchange in the Reichspost. Scales began on May 8th with the metaphor borrowed from Shakespeare: "Oil or no oil in the Vienna Basin?" and addresses Schaffer directly: "He recently went up against the assumption that oil could be found in the Vienna Basin in a local daily newspaper, and went so far as to say: 'In the entire area of the Vienna Basin, there can be no talk of any oil deposits at all.'" On May 11th, Schaffer's letter to the editor followed under the heading of Weisens from May 8th, where he emphasized, among other things: "Mr. Glauben seems to recognize the contrast between the geological conditions in the area Egbel and the Inner Alpine Vienna Basin, otherwise he would not be able to transfer the experiences there - extremely sad in terms of financial results - to the immediate surroundings of Vienna with so much hope of victory. He also admits to having been misquoted by a newspaper.
Balances, in turn, replied to him on May 13th in a letter to the editor ("The question of oil deposits in the Vienna Basin") and referred to the article from May 11th: "This correction is a masterpiece of the genre that is currently in use. However, it is at least gratifying to see from it that Professor Schaffer himself recognized the inaccuracy of his original statements and wanted to have a correction made. This also admits that Schaffer himself considered the point of view he represented as recognizes that it is untenable." Oberbergrat Lukas Schwerten then continues: "When Schaffer finally says that scientific questions cannot be decided through 'animated articles' in daily newspapers, I agree with him completely, but just as little such a decision can be achieved through the kind of meddling that Schaffer apparently fundamentally pursues."
The facts about oil were to follow in the early 1930s in the Zistersdorf area (Lower Austria). On August 30, 1930, the Windisch Baumgarten 1a borehole found what it was looking for. Petroleum was then supplied by the Gösting I well (1932/33); But it was only Gösting II on August 23, 1934 that resulted in an economically interesting find; which Libra had long since accepted. Ultimately, the Vienna Basin became the richest hydrocarbon deposits in Central Europe. (Thomas Hofmann, August 12, 2024)