The deadlock in Pleistocene Palaeobotany

Abstract

It seems to me to be necessary to give some remarks as a commentary to my article, since the attitude of some European scientists toward the problem discussed in my paper is (considering the second half of the twentieth century) a rather particular one. I have encountered the following opinions and remarks: " It is known that the diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner is ambiguous, but one cannot agree with the hypotheses given in the article “, .  . or" It is true that many scientists tried to find a correlation between the glaciations in Alpes and the remaining part of Europe (A. K. Wells, W. B. Wright, L. J. Wills, J. F. Kirkaldy), and that they have stated many contradictions, nevertheless the explanation of these contradictions given in the article is hardly accepted " ..., or "The attempts of shaking the diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner are not friendly accepted by the scientists, being not supported by most of them". According to my opinion, such attitudes, luckily not general ones, are anti-scientific. It is up to the science to put hypotheses and theories, provided that it has its disposal the well-grounded facts. But it is also up to the science to shake the hypotheses and to put them to a critical analysis, as the new facts that may be used as necessary arguments become available. The science cannot base its activity upon the faith in infallibility of scientificial authorities. A scientific discussion which admits the facts, the observed phenomena and their logical interpretation is the only basis for any scientificial activity. The scientists who forget this truism are at the same time dooming the domain of science represented by them to decrepitude. I am referring in my article to the papers of Koppen, Wegener, Gams, Bryan, Pflug, Schwarzbach. These papers cannot be ignored, as they faithfully represent the stated facts which every scientist must take under consideration. The diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner cannot stand in its present form, because of the contradictions it contains. Changes which must be introduced into this hypothesis are justified by numerous and new conquests of the science. In such a situation every conception which brings some new elements into the diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner ought to be discussed in a scientific way. If an argument of this new conception is fallacious and not acceptable, the error must be distinctly pointed out. The same critera must be applied if the value of the new hypotheses is to be estimated, and only such a discussion may bring positive result.