独家首发《美国教授直指方舟子抄袭剽窃》

seikeiok

美国教授直指方舟子抄袭剽窃

刘实

（求真网2011年7月28日电）近十年来，中国科坛活跃着一股打着学术打假的旗号而疯狂迫害华人真科英雄、打压中华原创科技、消减中华文化传统、移植西方腐糜思想的伪科、汉奸加网流的黑学霸势力。其早期的代表、而且现在还走红的人物就是方舟子。

方舟子在那邪道上狂奔十年，作恶多端，民愤极大。而他的打假皇帝还被还原为造假皇帝、科普作家还真为抄窃之王。然而，一方面由于他的脸皮厚过天安门城墙、另一方面由于红墙内的一些昏官保驾护航，方舟子竟可以夹着一屁股的屎装洁癖、站在抄袭成堆的赃物上实施科学史上罕见的黑色恐怖。

方舟子贼喊捉贼的最厚颜无耻的一个辩护就是科普可以抄袭/剽窃（英文都是plagiarism）。为此，本网高人、超一流生命科学家刘实于今年三月底特地求教曾教过方舟子但却不幸也被方舟子抄袭的美国密执安州立大学教授Root-Bernstein（以后简称“根伯”）：抄袭有无两种定义和判别标准。根伯教授明确回答：没有。

根伯教授在给刘实回信的同时也按刘实的要求把同样的信抄送给了方舟子和他的《新语丝》编辑部。刘实要求方舟子将根伯教授的信全译后发表，但流氓至极的方舟子放下美国教授信的主体和要点不翻，却扭曲撒谎说什么根伯教授从没有说他抄袭。而根伯教授只是说断定方舟子是否抄袭要由同时懂中、英文的人来判定（见《方舟子诡辩抄袭剽窃更显网络流氓本色》）。

四个月过去了，抄公方舟子仗着他编造的一个“美国教授从没有说他抄袭”的谎言还继续招摇撞骗。近来他还变本加厉地当起了旨在灭华的转主粮运动的大推手。

对于方舟子的顽固不化，高人刘实曾警告必要时要用核武器。现在，我们向大家报告：中国科坛打黑第一颗原子弹爆炸了！

下面是根伯教授针对刘实进一步提问所给的最新答复。有趣的是，这次刘实没有要求，根伯就将该答复也同时抄送给了方舟子和他的《新语丝》编辑部。所以，现在方舟子应当是正在“认真阅读”此信。

考虑到方舟子一定会对此信做“最严谨”的翻译，我们就先让他去翻好了。我们在这里只将原文的一些关键句加黑和译出。

Dear Dr. Shi Liu,

Yours is the fourth translation of Dr. Fang's essay to have been sent to me. Three have been from people who believe that Dr. Fang is guilty of plagiarism; one was from a friend of Dr. Fang's who claimed that the translation he sent me proved that Dr. Fang was not guilty of plagiarism. In fact, all of the translations, including the one from Dr. Fang's friend, are extremely similar in langauge and all lay out an identical argument using exactly the same examples. Much of the language, all of the argument, and the vast majority of the examples are drawn verbatim from my essay, which is not cited as a source of the argument, the language or the examples. I am now, therefore, convinced that Dr. Fang has plagiarized my work.  [（方文的）语言，所有的论点，大多数的例子都是从我的文章取来，但却不引用我。因此，我现在郑重宣布方博士抄袭/剽窃了我的著作。]

Let me add two important points. One is that under international copyright law, not only is the exact language of an essay protected, but so is the structure of the argument and the set of examples used to bolster the argument [根据国际版权法，不仅文章的语言受保护，论点结构及用于支持论点的例子都受保护]. Devising the argument and marshalling the evidence to support it is, after all, just as much a form of intellectual work yielding unique intellectual property as is the crafting of the specific words used to convey the argument. The second point that I want to reiterate is that the Dr. Fang's claim that popularizations are exempt from copyright is absolutely false [方的普及就可不受版权法制约的说法是完全错误的].  An individual who popularizes science (or any other subject) is under just as much obligation as is the original scholar to cite his or her sources or provide other means for the reader to determine what original sources were used in writing the popularization. As an example, you can look at the popular blog on creativity that I write with my wife Michele Root-Bernstein on the Psychology Today website: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine

Sincerely yours,


Bob Root-Bernstein