8月5日美籍华裔科学家刘实在自已博客上发表了《方舟子“道歉”还诡辩，“根伯”再批不留情》一文，披露打假斗士方舟子16年前“借”用母校教授理论遭批评事情最新进展。 刘实，美籍华裔科学家，1962年出生于中国湖北黄冈，微生物学家和生命科学的一个开拓型研究者，美国国家环保局研究员。 1994-1997年以博士后身份在美国橡树岭国家实验室（Oak Ridge National Laboratory）进行地下深层微生物的生理生态研究。1997-2000年以Research Associate（研究助手）身份在美国德雷塞尔大学（Drexel University）进行病源微生物的分子生物学和基因组学研究。2002年至今任美国国家环保局正式科学者(Staff Scientist)，从事环境污染对人群健康影响的分析评估研究。 2000年至今，刘实在工作之余，创建了雄鹰分子医学研究所（Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine，EIMM）从事生物医学多领域的研究。2001年刘实被华中科技大学同济医学院授予客座教授。 中国科坛打黑的第一颗和第二颗原子弹分别于2011年7月28日和8月3日爆炸后，水军造谣惑众、恶毒攻击求真人士、还要对美制“原子弹”的英文挑毛病。最后，方舟子亲自给美国教授“根伯”发了如下的“道歉”信： In 1995 when I was a graduate student at MSU, I posted a short writing to an online forum called alt.chinese.text when there was a debate about pseudoscience among oversea Chinese students. It was an informal, casual follow-up to a discussion thread, not an academic paper or assignment. Part of it paraphrased the criteria of science from your article. I presented the criteria of science as "consensus in philosophy of science" and give my own examples to explain it. This writing was revised and formally published in one of my books in 1999, and it cited the source as "According to the summary by Root-Bernstein", and when the criteria were mentioned again in another book of mine in 2007, it gave reference as "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984".(Without this reference, I don't believe the supporters of Xiao Chuanguo, the surgeon who hired assailants to attack me using pepper spray and hammer after I exposed his malpractice, could track down the source and report the "plagiarism" to you and MSU administration 16 years later. I have deleted email addresses of four Xiao's supporters in this reply) I never presented the criteria as my own original idea, nor did I copy your wordings. And when it's formally published, the source had been credited and cited. Therefore I don't think it consists of plagiarism or copyright infringement according to the common accepted definitions with which you disagree. But it's inappropriate not to explicitly credit you in my original posting, and I apologize for it. （我1995年写的文章，还是个学生，既非学术文章，也不是作业。我‘复述’了阁下文章中的一些观点。但我用的是自己的举例来阐述这些观点的。我如果不引用你的文章，肖传国的那些支持者就不知道我曾经‘剽窃’过你的文章。我从没有抄袭你的文字。根据我对剽窃的定义，我没有剽窃你的文章，尽管你不同意我对这个‘剽窃’的定义。我道歉。） 然而，方舟子的这个“道歉”可蒙不了美国教授，“根伯”对此立即发出了如下的公开信： Thank you for admitting your error in failing to cite my article in your initial online essay, and for the apology regarding it. I do not, however, believe that your response adequately addresses the points I made in my open letter. The issue is not a matter of a missing citation, which, since you have corrected it, would be a minor matter indeed. The issue is that you have appropriated my entire argument and most of the examples that I use to support it. Whether we want to label this "plagiarism" or "copyright infringement" or some combination of the two is irrelevant. The fact is that you did not alter my argument in any way; you did not mix it or modify it with other peoples's arguments; and you presented it in exactly the same order and (and here I must insist on this) using the same language. Now you add the additional insult in arguing that I am mis-using the concepts of plagiarism and copyright infringement in making my accusations. And you do so without justifying this attack upon my supposed ignorance. So how, exactly, do you define plagiarism and copyright infringement? At what point did you inquire of me or of Oxford University Press the right to use a large portion of my article, or even to popularize it? Please note that I am sending this to all of the people who have expressed interest in this issue. As I said in my open letter to you, I want to use this as an educational forum. Your attempt to prevent those who you consider your "enemies" from having a voice in this discussion undermines the openness with which I approached you and is counter-productive. Sincerely, Bob Root-Bernstein 谢谢你承认在最初的网文中没有注明所引用的我的文章的来源，以及为此所做的道歉。但我认为你的答复并不足以回应我在公开信中的观点。问题不在于是否加了注释，而且既然你已经改正了这个错误（译者注：指在后来发表的某些版本的书中加注了引用来源），这实在只算是个较小的问题。问题的关键在于你窃用了我全部的观点和大部分的例证。至于我们称之为抄袭还是侵权或两者兼而有之，这是另外一个问题。事实是你没有以任何方式修改我的观点，你也没有加入他人的观点，而且你用与原文完全一致的顺序和相同的文字（这里我必须强调这点）来表述。现在你说我在指控你抄袭时，错误地使用了抄袭和侵权的概念，这对我是又一侮辱，而你如此攻击我，说我无知，却完全没有给出合理的解释。那么，在你看来，究竟怎样才算是抄袭和侵权呢？你什么时候征求过我或牛津大学出版社的同意，来使用我的文章，甚至出版发行？ 请注意我把这封信发给了所有对此感兴趣的人。正如我在给你的公开信中说的，我希望以此起到教育作用。你试图阻止那些你认为的“敌人”在此讨论中发出他们的声音（译者注：方舟子删除了此信所抄送的近30个人中四个他的“敌人”的信箱地址），这损害了我与你讨论的公开性，也必将适得其反。 哈哈！“真诚的（Sincerely）方舟子（Shi-min Fang）被“真诚的（Sincerely）“根伯”（Bob Root-Bernstein）真诚地再批了一次，那么方舟子是否应当再“真诚地”道歉一次呢？
| 
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-8-8 07:44:29
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡