欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Fang Zhouzi's reply to Dr. Root-Bernstein and Dr. Root-Bernstein's response to Fang (1855 查看)

November 09, 2012 07:21AM
RE: Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang

August 6, 2011

Dear Shi-min Fang,

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


Quoting Shi-min Fang <smfang@yahoo.com>:

> Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,
>
> 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shi-min Fang
> ________________________________________
主题 发布者 已发表

Fang Zhouzi's reply to Dr. Root-Bernstein and Dr. Root-Bernstein's response to Fang (1855 查看)

亦明 November 09, 2012 07:21AM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.