RE plagiarism
[email protected] Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:40 PM
To: Shi Liu , [email protected], [email protected] 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
附:Root-Bernstein教授的英文论文与方舟子文的对照
Dr. Root-Bernstein :
“There are four primary logical criteria for a theory. It must be (1.a) a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (‘Ocam’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.”
方舟子文:
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:
“Three [four] 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.”
方舟子文:
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:
“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.”
方舟子文:
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:
“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.”
方舟子文:
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。
![](69e23a80.png)
博主二维码,光标右键点图片可下载