方舟子获自然杂志2012年首届John Maddox科学捍卫奖

状态
不接受进一步回复。
科普文章是介绍性的文章,它的原创性在于写作方法而不是被介绍的对象。对同一个对象C,A和B都去介绍,你大惊小怪地讲B抄了A,其实那个方黑如果水平再高点,还能找出DEFG来的,因为如果C是著名成果,那不只一个地方会介绍的。你说,这种介绍C的文章需要把其他引用过C的文章也都列进来吗?

我从已贴的原文来看,中英文在用语、侧重点、结构上、顺序上并不一致,两者在用自己的语言讲相同的故事。这种情况下,后讲的那个只需讲故事的来源,没有义务告诉读者另外还有哪些人讲过同样的故事。

《卢伯斯顿教授致方是民公开信:汉语授权版》的内容,属于断章取义和有意误导的结果。原因很简单,那个教授不懂中文,他只能听另一个懂中英文的告诉他是怎么回事,这个人就是亦明本人。他是怎么套出来这段话的,原文邮件据说已经交给法院了(由于其他的名誉权官司)。

1) 问题是怎么老方A对C的介绍就跟B对C的那么雷同呢?连错误都一致......
2) 用自己的语言讲相同的故事,有道理,你见过亲历同一事件的不同人讲述同一故事时用的都是同样的逻辑、结构的吗?不仅是单句的结构,也包括整篇故事的脉络。
3)你凭什么断定那封信是断章取义和有意误导的结果?要不你找老方要原文来给大家看看。另外,你太低估方黑群体的数量了吧,跟那个教授讨论方是民抄袭事件的人多了,随便找一个给你看看:
Root-Bernstein教授向一位询问者确认其指控及一系公开信的真实性英文原文:(http://health.gmw.cn/2011-08/22/content_2501491_2.htm)

Dear Valerie Wu,

1) The letter is real. I have appended it to this email. You will be receiving another response to Dr. Fang shortly that expands on my concerns.

2) I have accused Dr. Fang of plagiarism and copyright infringement in several public letters that Dr. Fang has received copies of. If he says otherwise, he is lying.

3) If Mr. Fang were merely citing the source of an idea, then he would be correct in asserting that he does not need my permission, nor the publisher of my book chapter (Oxford University Press). But Dr. Fang did not just cite my ideas: he copied, almost verbatim, half-a-dozen paragraphs from my chapter in writing his article, and the material from my chapter constitutes at least half of his article. Using this much of someone else's material without their explicit permission is not allowed by any publisher of which I am aware, nor any educational institution, and this is true whether Dr. Fang actually translated my words directly, or merely reworded such a substantial amount of my argument and its examples. Moreover, Mr. Fang cannot use the excuse of relying on "Fair Use", since he personally is paid by his non-profit organization to write his blog and books, and therefore profits from his unfair borrowing of other people's material.

4) Yes, you may translate and post my original letter, as well as the additional letters you will be receiving shortly. Indeed, I grant this right to translate my letters into Chinese to anyone who wishes to do so, with the sole proviso that the translation be complete and accurate. The more people who have access to the entire controversy and the more translation versions there are to compare, the better the issues can be decided.

Many thanks for your interest in this problem.

Sincerely,

Bob Root-Bernstein
 
从你给出的亦明的中英文对照来看,老方抄袭的英文书还是非常严格遵守西方论文标准的(不是什么我的标准),用了别人的结论,就给人家credit. 都加了标注的。



This idea was derived partly from the works of philosophers such as Aristotle and partly from the experimental work of Osborne, Mendel, and Ferry (1917), whose data suggested, but did not prove, that underfed rats live longer. McCay, Crowell, and Maynard (1935) demonstrated that rats 。。。



This finding, that animals on a low calorie, nutrient rich diet far outlived animals allowed to eat as much as they wanted, has been replicated a great number of times. One such study with mice and rats by Weindruch (1986) showed that



A large body of data (reviewed by Masoro 1988a, 1992a; Weindruch and Walford 1988; Finch 1990 shows 。。。



An example of a normal trait that is eliminated in restricted animals is the normal increase in the number of fat cells found in particular fat depots in the rat. Not only does caloric restriction eliminate the increase in fat cells, but it brings about a significant decrease in the fat depot mass as a result of a reduction in the number of fat cells (Masoro 1992).



Clearly, caloric restriction works. But why should mammals come equipped with a mechanism that enables them to live long if they stay hungry? What is the evolutionary sense behind this concept? One proposal suggests that caloric restriction is best viewed as a special application of the disposable-soma theory (see chapter 4), which is based on the premise that an organism can devote its excess calories, beyond the amount needed for basic and essential functions, to reproduction and/or somatic maintenance. In this view, caloric restriction evolved as the set of mechanisms by which an organism adjusts its reproductive strategy to the conditions of its environment by shifting from rapid reproduction over a short time period to a reduced rate of reproduction over a longer life span (Holliday 1989; Richardson and Pahlavani 1994).



Furthermore, the diet restriction does not appear to work if it consists of the elimination of any single deleterious component of the diet. The individual restriction of any single food component (such as protein, fats, carbohydrates, fibers, or minerals) to the same extent as observed in the complete diet restriction regime does not markedly affect longevity (Iwasaki et al. 1988; Masoro et al. 1989). It now appears 。。。



The mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of caloric restriction are not clear. ……As Masoro (1988a) has pointed out, recent 。。。



Recent information suggests that this third hypothesis is too simple to be entirely correct, but it is also not entirely wrong. Dietary restriction does affect metabolism, but not in the simple manner envisioned by this theory. Data from the National Institute on Aging–National Center for Toxicological Research (NIA–NCTR) joint biomarker study have shown that caloric restriction induces a major metabolic reorganization in animals (Duffy et al. 1989; Feuers et al. 1991, 1995).

This reorganization includes a lowering of core body temperature, a shift away from fat synthesis and toward glucose synthesis, a change in motor activity such that it is concentrated about the feeding time, and an alteration in the body’s metabolic rate such that restricted animals have a lower than normal metabolic rate before feeding but a higher-than-normal metabolic rate after feeding. One result of such a metabolic shift would be the lowering of the organism’s steady-state production of harmful metabolic by-products that result in oxidative stress and damage (Sohal and Weindruch 1996).



The ability of calorie-restricted animals to satisfy energy requirements with low levels of blood glucose implies that they can minimize the age-related effects of glycosylation. Maintaining an efficient flow of glucose through glycolysis enables calorie-restricted animals to modulate their NADPH pools better. These latter cofactors are known to play an important role in maintaining some of the enzyme systems responsible for the detoxification of free radicals. Thus the ability to maintain “youthful” regulation of this enzyme may spare the organism the harmful effects of glycosylation and free-radical, or oxidative, damage, two harmful processes that can interact synergistically in contributing to the degeneration characteristic of old age (Kristal and Yu 1992). Caloric restriction has been shown to reduce the age-dependent accumulation of advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs) in both red blood cells and skin collagen (Cefalu et al. 1995). In addition, calorie-restricted animals have, in some but not all tissues, a higher level of superoxide dismutase enzyme activity and a lower level of superoxide and/or hydroxide radicals throughout their life span (Lee and Yu 1990).



In addition to these changes in energy metabolism, a multitude of other enzyme reactions are affected by diet restriction, including liver enzymes known to be involved in drug metabolism and elimination (Leakey et al. 1989). The complexity of these changes is illustrated by the observation that DNA repair activity increases in diet-restricted rodents (Lipman et al. 1989), while the same treatment simultaneously decreases both normal DNA synthesis and the binding of a chemical carcinogen to DNA in vivo (Chow et al. 1993). The observation that caloric restriction brings about various alterations in brain neurotransmitters suggests neuroendocrine involvement (Kolta et al. 1989).



One unexpected beneficial outcome of diet restriction is its effect on learning performance in mice (Ingram et al. 1987). Both 。。。



Caloric restriction works wonders for rodents, but what about other mammals? How does caloric restriction affect primates in general and human being in particular? At least two ongoing studies are focusing on the effects of caloric restriction in rhesus monkeys─one located at the National Institute of Aging (Ingram et al. 1990), the other at the University of Wisconsin (Kemnitz et al., 1993). In both studies the treatment is a reduction in caloric intake of about 30 percent. At the end of the first 5 years of the studies, this level of caloric restriction appears to be well tolerated by the animals, and the treatment outcomes identified so far resemble those of the rodent studies (Weindruch 1995b). These results include decreases blood glucose and insulin levels, increased insulin sensitivity, and increased HDL (“good cholesterol”) levels. Interestingly, long-term caloric restriction appears not to affect the animals’ energy metabolism, percent lean body mass, or percent body fat (Lane et al. 1995).



。。。。。。



从你的红字部分看,这个英文版的确实比方文严谨。
 
科普算不算抄,也应是有规定的,但是和学术论文不同。



教授的意思,科普也不能抄,这个没错。但是他回答的只是这个。中文有没有抄他的英文,他没法确认。反正都贴出来了,懂中文和英文的自己判断。

别的懒得争了,这句怎么讲?:eek:
教授的信里明确说了,他看了方舟子文章的四个不同的翻译版本,最终结论是“[方是民]剽窃了我的著作,抄袭了我的独特学术论点、其内在逻辑、用来佐证的要点、以及我辛苦搜获的例证”。:rolleyes:
 
谢谢小篆同学的原文。

Dear Valerie Wu,

1) The letter is real. I have appended it to this email. You will be receiving another response to Dr. Fang shortly that expands on my concerns.

2) I have accused Dr. Fang of plagiarism and copyright infringement in several public letters that Dr. Fang has received copies of. If he says otherwise, he is lying.

3) If Mr. Fang were merely citing the source of an idea, then he would be correct in asserting that he does not need my permission, nor the publisher of my book chapter (Oxford University Press). But Dr. Fang did not just cite my ideas: he copied, almost verbatim, half-a-dozen paragraphs from my chapter in writing his article, and the material from my chapter constitutes at least half of his article. Using this much of someone else's material without their explicit permission is not allowed by any publisher of which I am aware, nor any educational institution, and this is true whether Dr. Fang actually translated my words directly, or merely reworded such a substantial amount of my argument and its examples. Moreover, Mr. Fang cannot use the excuse of relying on "Fair Use", since he personally is paid by his non-profit organization to write his blog and books, and therefore profits from his unfair borrowing of other people's material.

4) Yes, you may translate and post my original letter, as well as the additional letters you will be receiving shortly. Indeed, I grant this right to translate my letters into Chinese to anyone who wishes to do so, with the sole proviso that the translation be complete and accurate. The more people who have access to the entire controversy and the more translation versions there are to compare, the better the issues can be decided.

Many thanks for your interest in this problem.

Sincerely,

Bob Root-Bernstein

既然教授已经指控了,那么当以受理方的判断为准。哪个地方受理的,结果如何?

教授如何判断逐字抄袭和直接拷贝?他阅读中文的能力在哪里?除非有人把方的中文翻译成英文吗并让他看,他看到的是什么?
 
是也得打假。就是现在没人陪那个亦明玩了。

是老方不敢搭理亦明吧?;) 上次老方以被匿名谣言的受害人角色悲壮地呼吁净化网络,可是实际上诸如亦明之类公开了真实身份的方黑们排着队去请他告自己,老方却装看不见。:(
亦明的队伍可是在发展壮大中,连我这种资浅方黑都开始关注他了。:p:D
 
别的懒得争了,这句怎么讲?:eek:

教授的信里明确说了,他看了方舟子文章的四个不同的翻译版本,最终结论是“[方是民]剽窃了我的著作,抄袭了我的独特学术论点、其内在逻辑、用来佐证的要点、以及我辛苦搜获的例证”。:rolleyes:

不好意思,你贴的信里我没找到教授讲的这句:mad:,大概是太困了。请你把教授看过的四个不同的翻译版本找到也不现实。

我看教授的原文,主要意思是侵犯了他的版权?考虑到这些书都卖,教授认为方应该联系他有关版权的问题,也就是说,如果方给了教授钱,教授就认为没问题了。这和学术规范是两回事。

没时间玩了,去睡了,晚安。:p
 
谢谢小篆同学的原文。


既然教授已经指控了,那么当以受理方的判断为准。哪个地方受理的,结果如何?

教授如何判断逐字抄袭和直接拷贝?他阅读中文的能力在哪里?除非有人把方的中文翻译成英文吗并让他看,他看到的是什么?

方粉们真是一贯如此啊,他人对老方的指控,都要求指控者提供确凿精准到直接作为法律文件的证据的地步,少一个细节都不行。老方对他人指控,却要被指控者自己提交自证清白的证据,少一个细节就会反过来变成了指控能够成立的证据。

我上面讲的“指控”就是诸如打李开复、唐骏假的“指控”,不是指向法院提交的法律意义的“指控”。:p:D我的理解,英文里的accuse也是可以这么用的吧?你不会说没有法院受理教授的accusation就不能证明教授公开讲方是民剽窃他的著作吧?
教授如何判断抄袭?前面讲了,教授读了方文的四个不同翻译版本,据说其中一个版本还是由老方的朋友提供的。你是不是想说老方身边也潜伏着高级方黑,关键时刻故意用误导性的翻译让教授深信老方剽窃自己的著作?:D:D
 
不好意思,你贴的信里我没找到教授讲的这句:mad:,大概是太困了。请你把教授看过的四个不同的翻译版本找到也不现实。



没时间玩了,去睡了,晚安。:p

我讲了我只是摘抄教授的信,但我提供了全文的链接。看来你这个资深方粉的信息来源确实太具有选择性。;)
 
不好意思,你贴的信里我没找到教授讲的这句:mad:,大概是太困了。请你把教授看过的四个不同的翻译版本找到也不现实。

我看教授的原文,主要意思是侵犯了他的版权?考虑到这些书都卖,教授认为方应该联系他有关版权的问题,也就是说,如果方给了教授钱,教授就认为没问题了。这和学术规范是两回事。

没时间玩了,去睡了,晚安。:p

:cool::cool:
哈哈哈,看了教授的两封信,你要这么说,我就只能哈哈哈了。
咱还是干脆点,直接喊个口号得了:方哥是清白无暇的,方哥得的大奖比诺贝尔奖还要大!
:D:D:D
 
对事不对人. 我讲得不对, 请大家指教!

《自然》杂志是理工科最高水平的杂志. 世界级的科技精英,无不以在《自然》杂志上发表过一篇文章为荣。方是民博士荣获的《自然》首届约翰·马多克斯奖可比莫言的诺贝尔文学奖,两奖是同一级别!

村里的“韩粉”,并不是真正的“韩粉”. 而是不服气的科技精英. 他们中的某些在CFC对方博士大打出手以示世人:他/她比方是民博士的水平更高!
 
文科获奖的不一定是水平最高的,但一定是很好的,比如莫言。方舟子的这个更货真价实一点,毕竟他勇敢地站出来捍卫科学。
 
文科获奖的不一定是水平最高的,但一定是很好的,比如莫言。方舟子的这个更货真价实一点,毕竟他勇敢地站出来捍卫科学。
:cool:

莫言的《丰乳肥臀》可比《红楼梦》不可小看文学作品的影响

方舟子打肖揭唐,捍卫科学和技术的真实与纯洁。
 
方大虾是广大理工科界书中自有颜如玉,书中自有真理在的典型人物。不崇拜他崇拜谁?要我看给他发NOBEL生物奖都可以:D:D



书中自有颜如玉出自宋皇帝赵恒, 鼓励人生的态度是通过读书考取功名, 五子登科。当时的学术制度是纯文科, 不知文史知识丰富的农民兄为何会把帽子戴在理科生身上。:D



对于理工科学生的前途, 当年也有一句很出名的话: 学好数理化, 走遍天下都不怕。其中隐含的意义是说学理工科主要是为了踏实地找份工作。
 
别的懒得争了,这句怎么讲?:eek:

教授的信里明确说了,他看了方舟子文章的四个不同的翻译版本,最终结论是“[方是民]剽窃了我的著作,抄袭了我的独特学术论点、其内在逻辑、用来佐证的要点、以及我辛苦搜获的例证”。:rolleyes:

今天又看了一遍教授的信,看名字是另一个教授,不是我们讨论的英文书的作者?看来这种所谓的证据看N+1遍又是浪费时间,除了亦明自己和某些网友,并没有什么教授跳出来帮亦明证实过这个中英文对照是不是抄袭。拿前朝的尚方剑斩本朝的官,小篆同学的玩笑开大啦:D
 
今天又看了一遍教授的信,看名字是另一个教授,不是我们讨论的英文书的作者?看来这种所谓的证据看N+1遍又是浪费时间,除了亦明自己和某些网友,并没有什么教授跳出来帮亦明证实过这个中英文对照是不是抄袭。拿前朝的尚方剑斩本朝的官,小篆同学的玩笑开大啦:D
:D有本事到《自然》杂志去上访,要求把我方哥的奖撤了!

躲在CFC搞什么搞?
 
状态
不接受进一步回复。
后退
顶部