How criticising can confirm that the criticised is at least in part correct
The book is only in part worthwhile reading – the argumentation is too often unconventional. Adam quotes frequently authors as the visionary Herman Oberth or the japanese physicist Michio Kaku and his adventurous visions of the future. that do not really represent the academic mainstream.
In question is the book Kampf gegen die Natur. Der gefährliche Irrweg der Wissenschaft and the review by Gottfried Plehn in MaxPlanckForschung 1/13, page 90. I did not read Adam’s book – in question is the consideration of the reviewer: no representing the mainstream is problematic. With such disqualifying expression Plehn stands in the rows of those who one stood applauding against the thesis that the planet earth moves. Indeed, the thinking of the Plehns obviously did not move a single inch. Sure, Gottfried Plehn is probably not sufficiently important to be mentioned. However, he is part of a mafia in academia that push towards suicide of science.