方舟子诡辩抄袭剽窃更显网络流氓本色

方舟子诡辩抄袭剽窃更显网络流氓本色

刘 实

编剧赵华按语：

是的，美国环保部华裔超一流生命科学家刘实先生给方舟子、方抄抄下了个套。刘实给方舟子涉嫌抄袭、剽窃的对象、方舟子母校美国密执安州立大学的鲁特伯恩斯坦（Root-Bernstein）教授发信提问：抄袭、剽窃真有不同的标准吗？科普中采取“复述”手段而不给出处真是正常的吗？鲁特伯恩斯坦教授作了详细回答，同时发给了方舟子和他的《新语丝》“编辑部”。方舟子似乎抓住了救命稻草，发微博声称鲁特伯恩斯坦教授“从来没有认定我过抄袭其文章”。但鲁特伯恩斯坦教授的指责“如果方博士复述了任何我的字眼而没用引号并指明源出于我，按美国的版权法他就是犯了抄袭剽窃罪。如果他还是大量的复述我的著作，那可不只是犯了美国的法、而且在道德上也是不可宽恕的。把另一个人的著作当成自己的著作在任何社会都不可道德地接受”，方舟子是不会以汉语译文公布出来的。鲁特伯恩斯坦教授说的是：“我不能确定方舟子是否抄袭剽窃了我的著作，因为我读不懂中文。抄袭剽窃的判定，必需留给能流畅阅读英、汉双语的人去做。”方舟子以为鲁特伯恩斯坦教授没有接受刘实的“举报”。但刘实根本就没“举报”，鲁特伯恩斯坦教授如何“认定”啊？现在，刘实拿出了第二招儿：正式向鲁特伯恩斯坦教授本人举报方舟子（方是民）抄袭、剽窃他的大学老师鲁特伯恩斯坦教授的论文。举报人正是方舟子最怕的“方学家”亦明（葛莘）先生，而且正是用“英、汉双语”举报的。那么，鲁特伯恩斯坦教授会得出什么结论呢？会不会起诉方舟子（方是民）犯了抄袭剽窃罪？让我们拭目以待！

正文：

最近方舟子长期大量抄袭剽窃并侵犯知识产权的事被摆上了主流平面媒体，虽然还没登顶《自然》和突破《科学》、但也够一个“打假皇帝”烦的。

自以为“行走在中美之间”就可无法无天的方舟子现在是被两面夹击。一方面，大陆的《法制周末》以大量的确凿证据，指控方舟子有抄袭剽窃嫌疑，从而露出方舟子十多年剽窃成山的冰山一角。另一方面，被方舟子尊称为高人的超一流生命科学家刘实从教过方舟子的美国密执安州立大学教授那取回“真经”明确了抄袭剽窃和知识产权的正确定义，从而断了方舟子科普就可抄袭剽窃的逃生后路。

但方舟子毕竟是个“侠客行”了多年的超级网流（网络流氓），经过这么多年的魔练（不是错别字），脸皮都已厚得不仅能跑火车、还可防核辐射。

今年3月30日，美国密执安州立大学（方舟子的母校，在那里他用伪造的数据骗取了博士学位。但毕竟才疏学浅、所以即使把博士论文的假数据抄进了JBC论文而且连做了两个低级博士后也找不到工作）的Root-Bernstein教授（简称“根伯”）针对刘实的提问（全信见附件）--- “Is it really true that there are different standards in defining plagiarism? Is copying without attribution really normal in publishing popular science works?（抄袭剽窃真有不同的标准吗？科普中复述而不给出处真是正常的吗？）”作了详细的回答（全信也见附件），该回信同时发给了方舟子和他的《新语丝》“编辑部”。

抛开个人恩怨，“根伯”以大学教授应有的风范给出了抄袭剽窃和侵犯知识产权的通用规则，那就是：“If Dr. Fang copied any of my words without putting them in quotation marks and attributing them to me, he is guilty of plaigiarism under U. S. copyright law. If he copied extensively from my work, that is not only illegal in the U. S., but morally inexcusable. To claim as one's own the work of another individual is never morally acceptable in any society”（如果方博士复述了任何我的字眼而没用引号并指明源出于我，按美国的版权法他就是犯了抄袭剽窃罪。如果他还是大量的复述我的著作，那可不只是犯了美国的法、而且在道德上也是不可宽恕的。把另一个人的著作当成自己的著作在任何社会都不可道德地接受）。

当然，教授自有教授的高明，“根伯”并没直接指控方舟子抄袭剽窃和侵犯知识产权（事实上他也不可能，因为刘实并未提供“根伯”可看懂的抄袭剽窃对照），而是把答案留给他曾经的学生和其他懂（英、汉）双语的人去做。他说：“I am in no position to determine whether Dr. Fang plagiarized my work or not, since I cannot read Chinese. The issue of plagiarism must be left to people who can read both languages fluently”（我不能确定方舟子是否抄袭剽窃了我的著作，因为我读不懂中文。抄袭剽窃的判定必需留给能流畅阅读（英、汉）双语的人去做）。

我因有“大事”要忙，就公开要求方舟子把“根伯”的信全译后发表，可做贼心虚的方舟子至今没把该信全译、也没敢公示全信。相反，他以其惯用的偷梁换柱、甚至于凭空造谣的伎俩欺负不懂中文的美国人和不懂英文的中国人，光天化日之下竟撒谎说：“根伯”“他从来没有认定我过抄袭其文章”（见方舟子《新浪》博客《关于《法治周末》造谣诽谤的声明》

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4740687901017zpw.html ）。

可“根伯”在他信的最后是怎么说的？“根伯”说“The legal and moral cases against stealing other people's intellectual work, whether written for academic or popular audiences, are clear. （不管是为学术还是科普写作，法律和道德在反对偷窃别人的智慧工作都是清楚的）”. 当然，他也再次强调：“Whether Dr. Fang has done so, as I said above, must be determined by people with the appropriate dual-language qualifications” （正如前面所言，方博士是否这样做了，即指偷窃了别人的智慧工作，必需由具有（英、汉）双语资格的人去判断）。

为此，刘实以《科学伦理》（Scientific Ethics）杂志主编身份给应当具有（英、汉）双语资格的人--- 北京大学的饶毅和清华大学的施一公去信，要求他们对方舟子被控的抄袭剽窃进行评价（http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670100q96n.html ）。可虽经公开敦促，这两位顶级海龟也还没发一言。

现在，刘实把他和“根伯”的通讯及亦明投诉方舟子时出具的证据放在本文下面，让具有英、汉双语资格的人来判断，方舟子到底抄袭剽窃既偷窃了别人的智慧工作没有？

刘实给“根伯”的信

From：Shi Liu <[email protected]>

To：R S Root-Bernstein <[email protected]>

Date：Thu, Mar 30, 2011

Subject：Re: Invitation for adding your contribution to the statement and bios for IS4ES

Dear Prof. Root-Bernstein,

In 2007 we communicated over an issue of establishing International Society for Ethical Scientists (IS4ES). But that effort was not finished.

Now I am writing to you on a concrete matter related with ethics in science and in general.

From a Chinese newspaper I read an accusation of Dr. Fang's plagiarism which involved a very significant amount of copying your book without even a reference to your work. The report cited a source (a Chinese professor working in a US university) of your recognition of that act of Dr. Fang as a plagiarism.

However, Dr. Fang has publicly defended his action and, as a matter of fact, he has repeatedly claimed that copying without reference is normal in writing popular science articles and books.

Is it really true that there are different standards in defining plagiarism? Is copying without attribution really normal in publishing popular science works?

I wish that you teach me something on this and, if possible, write a letter to Dr. Fang ("Shiming Fang" <[email protected]> and [email protected] ) and copy that letter to me to clear out the confusion on this important matter.

Best regards,

Shi V. Liu MD PhD

“根伯” 回刘实并抄送方舟子的信

From：[email protected]

To：Shi Liu <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected]

Date：Thu, Mar 30, 2011

Subject：RE plagiarism

30 March 2011

Dear Shi Liu,

Let me begin by saying that I am in no position to determine whether Dr. Fang plagiarized my work or not, since I cannot read Chinese. The issue of plagiarism must be left to people who can read both languages fluently.

Let me next state that the material that Dr. Fang is accused of plagiarizing was copyrighted. That is to say, it is protected against copying by United States law.

On the matter of whether it is ever permissible to copy someone's writings, United States copyright law is very explicit. One may copy only up to about 200 words, which must be placed in quotation marks and attributed to the original author. More extensive copying, whether in fragments that add up to more than 200 words or as a continuous piece, is explicitly forbidden without obtaining written permission from the author or his publisher. U. S. copyright law does not distinguish between scholarly works and popular ones: the law applies equally to both, since both are considered the fruit of intellectual work. Indeed, I consider it more difficult to write for a general audience than to write for my academic peers since it is much more difficult to communicate clearly to those with less knowledge and training.

If Dr. Fang copied any of my words without putting them in quotation marks and attributing them to me, he is guilty of plaigiarism under U. S. copyright law. If he copied extensively from my work, that is not only illegal in the U. S., but morally inexcusable. To claim as one's own the work of another individual is never morally acceptable in any society of which I am aware. Certainly in the U. S., we kick our students out of classes, and sometimes out of our universities, for such infractions and we often sue authors who engage in copyright infringement.

The legal and moral cases against stealing other people's intellectual work, whether written for academic or popular audiences, are clear. Whether Dr. Fang has done so, as I said above, must be determined by people with the appropriate dual-language qualifications.

Sincerely,

Bob Root-Bernstein

亦明投诉方舟子时出具的证据

China's Science Cop Plagiarized His Professor

While a PH.D. Student at MSU

Fang Shimin (aka Fang Zhouzi) is a well known figure in the world of academia. Science magazine and Nature journals have several times reported his fraud busting, whistleblowing activities in China. Science magazine alone has given him the titles of “China’s science misconduct watchdog”, “China’s Fraud Buster”, “Chinese Whistleblower”. [1-4] These articles have been widely circulated in China, and Fang himself has been using them to promote his

personal agenda.

Unfortunately, Science magazine has failed to present a fuller picture of Dr. Fang’s efforts. One of Fang’s primary whistleblowing areas is exposing other Chinese scholars’ plagiarism. However, many of these cases have been found to be groundless. At the same time, Fang himself has been found to have committed acts of plagiarism on multiple occasions. The first such case has been traced back to 2001, when Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, whose recent fight against Fang has attracted worldwide attention, reported to Science magazine that Fang did a verbatim translation of a Science paper, and then published it as his own writing.

Here, I would like to draw your attention to another case of Fang's plagiarism. In this case, Dr. Fang deliberately plagiarized a paper by one of his professors at Michigan State University (MSU) in 1995 while he was a graduate student there.

On May 16, 1995, while studying in the department of biochemistry at MSU as a Ph. D. student, Fang wrote an essay on philosophy of science (in Chinese), entitled “What Is Science”. The essay was published on the internet shortly after being written, and has been archived ever since on Fang’s own website New Threads in “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays”.[5] The theme of the essay is about how to determine whether a theory is scientific. According to Fang, a scientific theory must comply with all four sets of criteria, i.e. logical, empirical, sociological, and historical criteria. Each criterion consists of 2 to 4 sub-standards. In the essay, Fang did not cite a single reference, and he did not mention any other author’s names. It appears that the whole content of that writing belongs to Fang himself.

The fact is, 11 years earlier, in 1984, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor at MSU, published a paper titled “On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered”, in a book, Science and Creationism.[6] In that paper, Dr. Root-Bernstein on the philosophy of science and summarized four sets of criteria which define a scientific theory. After comparing Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper with that of Fang’s, it is clear that Fang’s What Is Science was based on Dr. Root-Bernstein’s On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered. Here are the comparisons:

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote:

“There are four primary logical criteria for a theory. It must be (1.a) a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (‘Occam’s Razor’); (1.b) Logically consistent internally; (1.c) logically falsifiable (i. e., cases must exist in which the theory could be imagined to be invalid); (1.d) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not any particular data are or are not relevant to the verification or falsification of the theory.”

Fang wrote:

“Logically, a theory must be 1) in accordance with ‘Occam’s Razor’, i. e. simple, without unnecessary details, without lots of postulates and conditions which could be used as excuses for a failure; 2) logically consistent internally. You could not first say that animals were created first, human being later, then you say human beings first, animals later; 3) falsifiable. It should not be always correct, under any circumstances, without any modifications; 4) with clearly defined application boundaries, so that it is only applicable to certain area under certain conditions, not to every area under the sky.”【在逻辑上，它必须是：1）符合‘奥卡姆剃刀’的原则，即必须是简明而非繁琐的，而不是包含一大堆假设和条件，为以后的失败留好了退路；2）本身是自恰[洽]的，不能一会说先造动物再造人，一会又说先造人再造动物；3）可被否证的，不能在任何条件下都永远正确、不能有任何的修正；4）有清楚界定的应用范畴，只在一定的条件、领域能适用，而不是对世间万事万物，无所不能，无所不包。】

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Three empirical criteria are of primary importance as well. A theory must (2.a) be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable; (2.b) actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions; (2.c) concern reproducible results; (2.d) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant.”

Fang wrote:

“Empirically, a theory must 1) have a testable predictions, rather than only be a fantasy; 2) actually have had verified predictions, that is, a scientific theory should not only have been falsified, but have never been verified, otherwise, the theory is useless; 3) have reproducible results. It should not be an one shot deal, or be the only store in town, only yourself could get that result, other people could not duplicate it, and in that case, you would blame these people not as skillful as you are; 4) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant, or as systematic errors, or as random errors, they all should be classified and separated clearly, rather than interpreted based upon you own wish.”【在经验上，它必须：1）有可被检验的预测，而不是只是一套美丽的空想；2）在实际上已有了被证实的预测，也就是说，一个科学理论不能只被否证，而从未被证实，否则这样的理论是无效的；3）结果可被重复，而不是一锤子买卖，或者是只此一家别无分店，只有你一个人作得出那个结果，别的研究者重复不出来，还要怪别人功夫不如你。4）对于辨别数据的真实与否有一定的标准，什么是正常现象，什么是异常现象，什么是系统误差，什么是偶然误差，都要划分得清清楚楚，而不是根据自己的需要对结果随意解释。】

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Sociological criteria also exist for determining the validity of a theory. A theory must (3.a) resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies, irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories; (3.b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work; (3.c) posit a ‘paradigm’ or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved; (3.d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.”

Fang wrote:

“Sociologically, a theory must 1) be able to resolve recognized problems. If it could not do that, then it has no reason for its existence; 2) pose a new set of scientific problems, and propose models for scientists solving these problems, i. e. not only it should have explanations, but also could provide predictions. Otherwise, it is useless; 3) provide definitions of concepts which must be operable, not like the fake concepts such as ‘Qigong field’, ‘Nature-human responsiveness’, which are not beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.” 【在社会学上，它必须：1）能解决已知的问题，如果连这也办不到，这种理论就毫无存在的必要；2）提出科学家们可以进一步研究的新问题和解决这些问题的模型，也就是说，它不光要有解释，还要有预测，否则也没什么用处；3）提供概念的定义，而且必须是切实可行的，不是象“气功场”、“天人感应”之类子虚乌有、对解决问题没有任何帮助的伪概念。】

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Finally, there is a fourth set of theory criteria as well: historical ones. A theory must (4.a) meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual; (4.b) be able to accrue the epistemological status acquired by previous theories through their history of testing—or, put another way, be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed); (4.c) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.”

Fang wrote:

“Historically, a theory must 1) interpret all the data which has been already interpreted by old theories, i. e. you should not pick out only the data which is beneficial to you, and ignore the unbeneficial one. If you do, the theory is not as good as the old ones. The theories claiming how accurate fortune-telling is, how effective prayers are, use the following customary tactics: they exaggerate the successful incidences and hide the countless failed cases; 2) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity. For example, if ‘Scientific Creationism’ wants to replace an old theory like evolution, it not only should explain the data which has been explained very well by latter, it should also not ignore the other sciences which are consistent with evolution theory, such as the other branches of modern biology, astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry. By the same token, if someone claims ‘Qigong Science’ is the most advanced science, then that theory not only should be consistent with the research results of modern medicine, it also should not be conflict with other parallel subjects such as physics, chemistry, and biology.”【在历史上，它必须：1）解释已被旧理论解释的所有的数据，也就是说，你不能只挑对自己有力的数据作解释，而无视对己不利的数据，否则就还不如旧理论；那些宣扬算命多准、祷告多有效的，其惯用伎俩就是挑出成功的巧合大肆宣染，而隐瞒了无数失败的例子；2）跟其它有效的平行理论相互兼容，而不能无视其它理论的存在。比如，“科学的神创论”如果要取代进化论这种“旧”理论，就不仅要解释已被进化论很好地解释了的所有的数据，而且不能不理睬与进化论相容得非常好的现代生物学的其它学科以及天文学、地质学、物理学、化学等的成果。同样，有人声称“气功科学”是最尖端的科学，那么它不仅要包容现代医学的研究成果，还必须与物理学、化学、生物学等等平行学科不互相抵触。】

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

In summary, Fang’s essay contains 1462 Chinese characters, among them, 777, or 53%, were derived from Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper, directly or indirectly. Fang copied all four sets of criteria, in the same sequence as they appeared in the original paper. Fang also copied 13 of 15 sub-standards presented by Dr. Root-Bernstein, also in the same order. Some sentences of Fang’s Chinese writing are verbatim translations of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper. The dissimilarities between the two articles are caused mainly by the following reasons: 1. Fang’s ignorance of certain area, such as Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm” theory, and Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory; 2. Fang’s misunderstanding of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing, such as the first sub-standard of set 4; and 3. Fang’s own extension or interpretation of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing.

Whether or not Fang’s above writing constitutes plagiarism by western standards, it is indeed an academic crime according to most Chinese people’s, and even Chinese laws. Mostly ironically, even by Fang’s own definition, his act is precisely plagiarism.

On March 23, 2010, when responding to yet another accusation of him using direct translations as his original writing, Fang states:

“It is commonly accepted that an article which was translated directly from the English original is an act of plagiarism. I have been regarded by others as an ‘academic fraud-fighter’, exposing others' plagiarism all the time, if I have also committed an act of plagiarism, like those whom I have exposed, I should be then included in the group of the most despicable creatures.”[7]

Well, in the eyes of many Chinese scholars, Fang is indeed such a person.

References

1. Hepeng J, Xin H. China’s Fraud Buster Hit by Libel Judgments; Defenders Rally Round. Science. 2006 Dec 1;314:1366-1367.

2. Hao Xin. Assailants Attack China's Science Watchdog. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/08/assailants-attack-chinas-science.html)

3. Hao Xin. Urologist Arrested for Attacks on Chinese Whistleblowers. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html)

4. Hao Xin. Doctor Sentenced in Beijing for Attack on Critics. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/10/doctor-sentenced-in-beijing-for.html)

5. 《方舟子诗文集》, (see: http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/science/science.txt)

6. Root-Bernstein, R.. On defining a scientific theory: Creationism considered. In A. Montagu (Ed.), Science and creationism (pp. 64–93). New York: Oxford University Press. 1984.

7. The original wording is: “‘直接是英语文章翻过来的’却公认是抄袭。我被人称为‘学术打假人士’，整天揭发别人抄袭，如果自己也干抄袭的勾当，这样的 ‘人’是该被分到最卑劣的一群里头去的。”。 (see: http://www.xys.org/forum/db/6/133/167.html)
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670100qas7.html

方舟子团伙迫害肖传国事件资料汇编
点击附件下载pdf文件：附件: .pdf (4.29 MB)

http://www.2250s.com/read.php?2-5940-5940

《方舟子抄袭剽窃年谱》点击附件下载pdf文件：附件: .pdf (7.43 MB)

http://www.2250s.com/read.php?2-6081-6081
《方舟子抄袭剽窃数据库》点击附件下载：Fang's plagiarism.xls (121.5 KB)

http://www.2250s.com/read.php?2-5638-5638

中国学术评价网“方舟子真相”论坛

http://www.2250s.com/list.php?2

赵华：方舟子造假铁案专辑（58案，持续更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201011241049164.html

方舟子妻、新华社记者刘菊花年谱

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/articlelist_2031554192_0_1.html

揭露方舟子、抵制转基因博文专辑（持续更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201010191026403.html

被新浪博客和谐博客中国收留博文

http://www.blogchina.com/201011021035431.html

博文网刊《绝顶阅世》第一至九期

http://www.blogchina.com/201103271111388.html

【拒吃大豆油，抵制转基因，不当小白鼠】

【反转基因大本营：http://www.wyzxsx.com/】

【转基因专题网站：http://www.zhuanjy.com/】