Bernstein原著和方舟子剽窃文的对应分析ZT (转载)# Returnee - 海归
s*n
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: smokinggun (硝烟), 信区: Military
标 题: Bernstein原著和方舟子剽窃文的对应分析ZT
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 25 02:01:14 2011, 美东)
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shortly after being written, and has been archived ever since on Fang’s own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
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
发信人: smokinggun (硝烟), 信区: Military
标 题: Bernstein原著和方舟子剽窃文的对应分析ZT
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 25 02:01:14 2011, 美东)
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
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