欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4344 查看)

March 24, 2013 02:40PM
【Note: The PDF file is more reader-friendly. Click the title to open it.】

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature
──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XIX)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

【Summary】In April, 2002, Fang published a lengthy article about IQ test and general intelligence in a Chinese popular science magazine. It was discovered 8 years later that the article was mainly translated from Harvard Professor Stephen J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, and Canadian mathematician A. K. Dewdney’s Yes, We Have no Neutrons. A complete analysis and comparison is provided.


Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Harvard Case (II)

The Story
The Evidence

1. Weird Ideological Alignment
2. Astonishing Ignorance
3. Fang and Gould
4. Fang and Dewdney

The Comparison

Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Harvard Case (II)

Major players: Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and A.K. Dewdney, the victims; and Fang, the thief

The Story

On April 3, 2002, Fang published an article in Newton-Science World magazine, entitled The Misreading of IQ[1]. The article contains 6,134 Chinese characters, but contains not a single reference, citation, or attribution. Fang would republish it four more times in the next ten years.

A stolen goods sold five times
Fang’s The Misreading of IQ was first appeared in April, 2002, in Newton-Science World magazine; then in January, 2003, in Youth Science magazine; in May, 2003, in Teacher’s Digest magazine; in 2007 in Fang Zhouzi Solves World Mysteries, a book published by Shan’xi Normal University Press; and in 2012 in Mysterious Phenomena Are not Mysterious, a book published by Guangxi Science and Technology Press.

The publishers of Fang’s fraudulent article and books
From left: Mr. Tang Yunjiang, editor-in-chief of Newton-Science World (now Science World); Mr. Liu Dongfeng, the president of Shan’xi Normal University Press; and Mr. He Xing, the president of Guangxi Science and Technology Press.

In The Misreading of IQ, Fang introduced the history of IQ test, questioned the definition of intelligence, denied the existence of “general intelligence,” and excluded the possibility of finding intelligence genes. It is quite weird that Fang could hold such opinions, because Fang was, and still is, an avid genetic determinist. For example, in December, 1999, 28 months before The Misreading of IQ, Fang claimed that “gene therapy could permanently increase the intelligence, strength, and the capabilities of sensory organs and all other aspects in normal children, even adults.” He even claimed that the genetic research could elongate human being’s life span indefinitely[2]. In 2005, 3 years after The Misreading of IQ, Fang wrote: “Genetic factors could affect a person’s eating habit and appetite.”[3] So, why did Fang slap his own face in 2002? Considering the fact that Fang had no training in psychology, and his plagiarist history, it would be logical to speculate that Fang had stolen someone’s article and adopted the victim’s opinions.

The speculation was confirmed in 2010, when I found out that Fang’s article was mainly, 75%, translated from the 5th chapter (The Hereditarian Theory of IQ: An American Invention) of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (W. W. Norton & Co., 1981) and the 2nd chapter (Mind Numbers: The Curious Theory of the Intelligence Quotient) of Canadian mathematician Dr. A.K. Dewdney’s Yes, We Have No Neutrons (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997). I wrote an article, Original Writing, Translation, Compilation, or Plagiarism: Comment on Fang Zhouzi’s The Misreading of IQ, to expose the plagiarism case, and submitted it to Newton-Science World, but received no response from the magazine. The article was later published on Academic Criticism Net on January 22, 2011, then on Guangming Net 4 days later. On Feb. 25, 2011, Shenzhen Economic Daily reported the case[4]. As I have mentioned repeatedly, that was the first time a Chinese news medium reports Fang’s plagiarism history.

A historic event: The page image of Shenzhen Economic Daily’s report
Ten years after the exposure of Fang’s first plagiarism case, and five months after the arrest of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, one of the whistleblowers of the first case, China’s news media finally found the guts to expose Fang’s dirty secrets.

Fang had been trying his best to ignore the allegations leveled against him on the internet, and threatening any print media with lawsuits if they dare to expose his dirty secrets. Since Shenzhen Economic Daily was the first print medium who broke his prohibition, Fang felt he had to respond. And his responses were very entertaining. Here is his first reaction:

“Shenzhen Economic Daily reporter Zheng Jianyang played dumb, claiming he had been watching my microblog, but he didn’t know why ‘Dr. Xin Ge who lives in the U. S. would care about Fang’s article,’ didn’t know that so called Xin Ge was the Fang expert Yi Ming who had written more than a million characters slandering me and supporting Xiao Chuanguo? He didn’t know I had responded several times to his plagiarism allegations against me on me microblog and blog? This person ‘has demonstrated’ many of my articles were ‘plagiarized,’ you keep reporting.”[5]

Here is his second:

“Just like the journalists who slandered my wife last time, the manipulator of this time is Southern Weekly’s executive-rumor-spreading-editor Xu Qingliang. It’s time for Southern Media Group to revenge for Zhu Xueqin. Fang experts should be excited. For the past ten years or so, they have scolded me on the internet, now they can finally scold me in the print media.”[6]

Here is his third:

“For many years, Yi Ming (Ge Xin) has been accusing me every day that all of my popular science articles were plagiarism. If I respond to every one of his accusations, how can I have time to do my proper job? There is an e-friend who did analyses before on how Yi Ming slandered me by cheating those who don’t know English: see: Yi Ming’s Ignorance and Vexatiousness, [t.cn], and Whether It Is Fang Zhouzi’s Fault if Fang Expert Yi Ming Does Not Understand a Popular Science Article? [t.cn].”[7]

No one in this world knows what Fang’s “proper job” is, except for attacking and stealing other people. The two articles Fang mentioned in the third response were written by that idiotic james_hussein_bond, the first one had already been refuted by me right after it was posted[8]; and the second article was the one he defended Fang’s ignorance by admitting Fang’s plagiarism in the Nature-Science case (see Part XVII. ).

Besides citing james_hussein_bond, Fang also urged his other followers to come to his rescue. On Feb. 26, 2011, Pan Haidong, who received his Ph. D. degree from Boston University in 2004, and padded his CV so he could join Chinese government’s “1000 Talents Plan,” issued a brief statement:

“I have examined, that article was not plagiarism.”[9]

76 minutes later, another person named Zhang Zhaojin also issued a statement:

“I used to be an editor with Science World, and this article was edited and released by me after strict examination, absolutely no plagiarism. Please shut up, you rumormongers. What you are doing can only expose your nature of ignorance and shrew.”[10]

Fang’s feebleminded defenders
Left: Mr. Zhang Zhaojin, the ex-deputy managing editor of Newton-Science World, who, not knowing English, testified that Fang’s article was not plagiarism. Mr. Zhang is currently an editor with People's Posts and Telecommunications Press and is the editor of the upcoming Self-selected Works of Fang Zhouzi[11];
Right: Pan Haidong, CEO of hudong.com, who hired Fang as its chief science advisor in July, 2012. The alliance between the scandalous Fang and the fraudulent Pan was most likely for the purpose of deceiving government for funds[12]. I have challenged Dr. Pan publicly to show the world how he “examined, that article was not plagiarism” since July, 2012, and Dr. Pan has not responded yet.

Fang’s own formal response to the event came about two weeks later, when a reporter with Xinan Evening News, a newspaper based in Anhui where Fang’s alma mater USTC located, asked Fang:

“In late February, The Misreading of IQ you wrote was accused of plagiarism by someone. It seems that you haven’t responded so far?”

Fang’s reply:

“Things like that happened long before. Ten years ago when I started busting frauds, someone said several of my science essays were plagiarized from some American magazines, they even reported to these magazines. In the end, the magazine, after investigation, rejected the allegation, saying it was not plagiarism.

“There are too many plagiarism allegations leveled against me on the internet, [saying my] popular science articles were plagiarism, my poems were plagiarism, essays were plagiarism, they are really absurd. If you want to say The Misreading of IQ was plagiarized from foreign magazine, most people’s English is not good enough to judge, so they can be easily fooled. However, if they say my Sunshine on the Wall plagiarized Anhui poet Liang Xiaobin’s Snow-white Wall, it is a pure joke. Comparing the two poems, except for walls, they have no relationship at all.

“Some people complain every day that I have plagiarized, so it is impossible for me to have time to respond. I only respond when I feel it is necessary.”[13]

Please pay attention to the sentence “someone said several of my science essays were plagiarized from some American magazines.” Please also pay attention to the fact that Fang brought the poem incident into this case. Why did he use plural forms (essays, magazines), when, in fact, only one essay and one magazine was involved “ten years ago” in the Science case? What the poem incident has anything to do with the plagiarism case of The Misreading of IQ? The answer is simple: that’s how Fang has been fooling Chinese people, as well as American people, British people, for the last 15 years. In a Chinese proverb, it is called “muddy the water in order to fish.”

Monstrous stealing
Fang’s The Misreading of IQ contains 6,134 Chinese characters, and 75% of them (highlighted in yellow) were translated from Drs. Gould and Dewdney’s books, but without any attribution.

Yes, till this day, Fang has found neither the time, nor the necessity, to respond my allegations, even though he has all the time in the world to do so, and what he has been doing daily is nothing but constantly accusing other people of fraud, and demanding other people’s response.

The Evidence

1. Weird Ideological Alignment

As mentioned above, Fang was, and still is, an avid genetic determinist, or in Dr. Gould’s term, a biological determinist. Besides the evidences I’ve already given, there are a lot more, hundreds, literally, such evidences. The fact is, one of Fang’s favorite words is 弱智 (ruò zhì), which means weak intelligence, feebleminded, mentally retarded, idiot, moron, etc. Fang uses the word constantly to label or scold his opponents[14]. On the other hand, Fang is extremely proud of his own intelligence, claiming that he, as well as his followers, possesses “superb IQ;” is “intellectually more advanced” than those who study humanities, or those who believe a religion or TCM[15]. As a matter of fact, when a reporter compared him to that high IQ egomaniac Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory, Fang seemed flattered[16].

Besides being a devoted biodeterminist, Fang is also a zealous reductionist, having written several articles promoting reductionism, and depreciating holism. For example, in 2000, Fang wrote: “reductionism is a scientific thought,” “reduction is a perfect research method.”[17] However, according to Gould, one of the fundamental errors of biodeterminism is reductionism[18].

So, how could such a frenetic biodeterminist/reductionist suddenly, and out of nowhere, became an expert on human intelligence, and denied the genetic basis of intelligence, the existence of general intelligence, and the usefulness of IQ test?

2. Astonishing Ignorance

In his article, Fang not only expressed opinions to which he had been strongly opposing, he also showed extreme ignorance in psychology. For example, to pretend to be a non-biodeterminist, Fang ended The Misreading of IQ by this sentence:

“The possibility of finding a certain intelligence gene is virtually zero.”[19]

However, just a few years earlier, several papers were published reporting the identification of loci linked to intelligence[20]. In fact, Dr. Robert Plomin, a well-known psychologist, declared in Nature in 1999: “genes that contribute to the heritability of g will certainly be identified.”[21] Didn’t Fang claim, a few months before writing his The Misreading of IQ, that “due to his job’s nature, [he] reads the newest papers in molecular biology almost every day”?[22]

If Dr. Lard Fang’s ignorance in molecular biology or biochemistry was surprising, his ignorance in psychology and human intelligence was astonishing. In Yes, We Have no Neutrons, Dr. Dewdney wrote:

“For the foregoing reason and others as well, the IQ school has been under more or less continuous attack from the beginning. The concept of IQ has been criticized by psychologists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science. To counter these criticisms, the IQ school has cleverly drawn its intellectual wagons into a circle.” (p.37)

Obviously not knowing the current opinions and conditions in psychological community in general, and the expression of “circle wagons” in particular, Fang translated the above into the following sentence in The Misreading of IQ:

“However, from the beginning, the IQ school was criticized in academia, and the criticism has continued till now; and the IQ school has never thoroughly responded to these criticisms in the past few decades.” (Sentence IX-1 in the table below.)

Of course “the IQ school” has responded: The Mismeasure of Man has been severely criticized by “the IQ school,” as Harvard Professor Bernard Davis summarized concisely in a sentence:

“While the nonscientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical.”[23]

The fact is, “the IQ school,” led by Dr. Linda Gottfredson, a professor at the University of Delaware, even issued a statement, appropriately entitled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence.”[24]

Unaware of all these things, on the day of the publication of The Misreading of IQ, April 3, 2002 (Beijing Time), Fang posted the article in the forum of the New Threads. One person, identified himself as “wintersing,” cited Dr. Linda Gottfredson’s Scientific American article, The General Intelligence Factor, and asked Fang:

“Is the opinion in your article just a prevailing opinion current scientific circle but there are still minority different opinions on this issue, or your opinion is the definitive theory just like Darwin evolution theory in Biology?”[25]

Fang didn’t answer the question directly; rather, he attacked Dr. Linda Gottfredson’s credential:

“That [Scientific American] article was written by a social science person, with nothing new, what value it has?”[26]

“wintersing” kept asking:

“But you are not an expert on human intellegence either, right? What is your counter argurment to disapprove her points other than attack her credential. Can you be more specific about why she is wrong.”[27]


“I only summarized the popular opinions in academia, [what I wrote] is not my original idea. All of her arguments have been refuted [by other people], including me.”[28]

Of course Fang was lying: he didn’t summarize, he just translated or plagiarized; and what he stole was not “the popular opinions in academia,” on the contrary, it was just the opinions expressed by a paleontologist, and these opinions, using a Nature reviewer’s words, “all have the routine flavour of Radio Moscow news broadcasts.”[29]

So, how did the debate between Fang and wintersing end? Ironically, it ended by Fang’s scolding the latter “low IQ,” “a wiseacre with a low IQ,” and “moron.”[30] What an idiot!

3. Fang and Gould

There are literally mountains of evidence showing that Fang has indeed plagiarized Dr. Gould. First, the structure and development of argument in Fang’s article were similar or identical to those in Gould’s book; Second, almost all the knowledge, information, examples, and the ideas/opinions, including those quotations without attributions, in Fang’s article were present in Gould’s book; Third, many of Fang’s wordings were the same as Gould’s. (See, for example, sentences III-6, III-7, and III-12 in the table below.) In other words, Fang’s article provided essentially nothing new to its readers, except for those copied from Dr. Dewdney.

Even though these evidences are compelling, it is still possible for Fang and his followers to “demonstrate” that all these similarities and identicalness are just coincidental; therefore the allegation has not been substantiated. To shut them up, one needs what Fang called “ironclad evidences”: technical errors, the small errors which are identical to the sources[31].

In his book, Gould accused Dr. Henry H. Goddard of a lot of things, including retouching photographs of the Kallikak family “to produce an appearance of evil or stupidity.” (p.172). And Fang did include one of the photos in his 2007 book with the following legend: “A photograph of feebleminded children in Goddard’s book. To enhance the effect of stupidity, Goddard purposefully darkened the eyes of these children in the picture with ink.”[32] Of course Fang didn’t know that someone had already pointed out in 1987 that retouching of photographs was a common procedure at Goddard’s time[33].

According to Gould, Goddard seemed to be an evil-minded person, he hated and despised the immigrants, and his reports were biased, to say the least:

“Binet tests on the four groups led to an astounding result: 83 percent of the Jews, 80 percent of the Hungarians, 79 percent of the Italians, and 87 percent of the Russians were feeble-minded—that is, below age twelve on the Binet scale. Goddard himself was flabbergasted: could anyone be made to believe that four-fifths of any nation were morons? …Eventually, Goddard monkied about with the tests, tossed several out, and got his figures down to 40 to 50 percent, but still he was disturbed.” (p.166)

And Fang’s parroting:

“The results were astounding: 83 percent of the Jews, 80 percent of the Hungarians, 79 percent of the Italians, and 87 percent of the Russians had mental age below twelve years old, i. e. feebleminded. Were four-fifths of the population in these nations mentally retarded? Even Goddard himself couldn’t believe it. He revised the test results so that the percentage of the feebleminded fallen to 40% to 50%, but the figures were still too high to be credible.” (Sentences VII-4 to VII-7)

In fact, the first sentence in Goddard’s report is:

“This is a study not of immigrants in general but of six small highly selected groups, four of ‘average normals’ and two of apparent ‘defectives,’ all of them steerage passengers arriving at Ellis Island.”(See image below.)

The summary of Goddard’s Immigrant Mental Test Report
The Journal of Delinquency 2:243-277.

Then, exactly what did Gould mean by “Goddard monkied about with the tests”? According to Goddard’s paper, there were different criteria or “ratings” to evaluate the test results. To make sense of his results, Goddard gradually lowered the rating, and this is what he wrote:

“Nevertheless after omitting these non-valid questions there is still enough left of the scale to give the examinee the chance to make a rating of X. More than 40 per cent of the Jewish immigrants fail to do even this. (See original data, Table I). According to this criterion more than 40 per cent (for all groups it is 39.1 per cent) would be considered feeble-minded according to the usual definition. It must be admitted that this gives the immigrant the benefit of every doubt.” (p.249)

Yes, according to Goddard, the “more than 40 per cent” feeble-minded rate was for the Jews only, and the overall result was 39.1%. Therefore, the number “50 percent” was invented by Gould, and Fang’s “50%,” as well as his “He revised the test results,” was, undoubtedly, stolen from Gould.

Does anyone still believe that Fang wrote his sentences based on reading Goddard’s report, instead of copying Gould’s book?

Of course, Dr. Gould’s “misrepresentation,” a term which has been used frequently by “the IQ school” to blame their critics in general, and Dr. Gould in particular[34], was not limited to the poor Goddard. In his book, Gould picked a few IQ questions from Lewis Terman’s Stanford-Binet test to argue that they do not really test intelligence. One such question was “My neighbor”: “My neighbor has been having queer visitors. First a doctor came to his house, then a lawyer, then a minister. What do you think happened there?” Among Gould’s comments was the following sentence:

“He did not accept the combination ‘divorce and remarriage,’ though he reports that a colleague in Reno, Nevada, had found the response ‘very, very common.’”(p.176)

Fang copied almost everything Gould wrote about the question, including the above one:

“He considered all other answers incorrect, and the most common incorrect answer was ‘divorce and remarriage,’…” (Sentence IX-9)

The fact is, both Gould and Fang were wrong. What Terman wrote was as following:

“The most common incorrect responses are: ‘A baby born’ (accounting for 5 out of 66 failures); ‘A divorce’ (very common with the children tested by Dr. Ordahl, at Reno, Nevada!); ‘A marriage’; ‘A divorce and a remarriage’; ‘A dinner’; ‘An entertainment’; ‘Some friends came to chat,’ etc. In failures out of 66, marriage was incorrectly connected with a will, a divorce, the death of a child, etc.”[35]

In other words, “the combination ‘divorce and remarriage’” was neither the “‘very, very common” response in Reno, Nevada, as Gould said, nor “the most common incorrect answer,” as Fang said. Then, where did Fang’s statement come from?

Does anyone still believe that Fang wrote his sentence based on reading Terman’s report, instead of copying Gould’s book?

4. Fang and Dewdney

Many people have pointed out that Dr. Dewdney’s Yes, We Have no Neutrons is not a good science book, and his chapter 2, Mind Numbers, was written mainly based on Dr. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man[36]. The questions are: Why did Fang plagiarize a second hand article when he had the original one? Besides the similarities, are there more concrete evidences supporting the notion that Fang plagiarized Dewdney?

The answer to the first question is, Fang is unbelievably ignorant. Even if he has required the other people to do science writing based on reading original papers, he seldom follows his own rule. More likely than not, Fang would plagiarize a popular article rather than an original academic paper. Gould’s book is more than 300 pages long (the expended, 1996 edition is more than 400 pages long), contains detailed analyses, arguments, and discussions. And Dr. Dewdney’s chapter is only 17 pages long, written in layman’s language, even though it isn't sound scientifically, it is enjoyable to read. And these are exactly the features Fang needs. As a matter of fact, Fang enjoyed Dr. Dewdney’s book so much in 2002 that he would come back six years later to plagiarize it one more time. In that case, about the cold fusion fiasco, more than 3,000 characters in Fang’s article were translated from the chapter 6 of Yes, We Have no Neutrons, including its mistakes. Fang was convicted by an academic misconduct panel organized by AIR-China on Feb. 17, 2011, and the verdict and the certificate was sent to both Dr. Dewdney and journal Nature[37].

The 4th Certificate of Plagiarism awarded to Fang

In this IQ case, it appeared that Fang plagiarized mainly from Gould at the beginning, because these parts were historical stories, and they were easy for him to understand. However, when Fang reached the 6th chapter of Gould’s book, about correlation and factor analyses, he got lost, totally. So he had to resort to translating Dewdney’s popular version.

The answer to the second question, what evidence do I have to say Fang plagiarized Dr. Dewdney, is easy. To demonstrate that IQ is not genetic, innate, and unchangeable, Dr. Dewdney cited “a classic study in the journal Psychological Monographs” by “Bernadine Schmidt, a young social scientist from Chicago.” Dr. Dewdney used 186 words to summarize Schmidt’s 144 pages report, and guess what? Fang not only cited the “classic study,” his summary of the study, which contains 280 Chinese characters (equivalent to 160 English words), was almost identical to that by Dewdney (See sentences XI-1 to XI-9 in the table below). How could that happen?

Even more unthinkable is, the so called “classic study” is nothing but an academic fraud, which was exposed by Dr. Samuel A. Kirk, a professor at the University of Illinois, shortly after it appeared[38]. As a matter of fact, if you want to search for the “classic study” right now, you would probably end up with Dr. Kirk’s paper. So, how did Fang found the paper by the “American social scientist Bernadine Schmidt”?

Of course, it is a joke that the prestigious British journal Nature certified “fraud fighter” plagiarizes a Canadian mathematician to preach an American fraudulent study to Chinese people in the name of science popularization. But the question is, the joke is on whom?

A Complete Comparison Between Fang’s The Misreading of Man and Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man and Dewdney’s Yes, We Have no Neutrons (Please read the PDF file).


[1] See: 方舟子:《“智商”的误区》. In his 2007 book, Fang Zhouzi Solves World Mysteries, the article is under a different title (Is IQ Unchangable?).

[2] Fang’s original Chinese: “正常的儿童甚至成年人,也将能够通过接受基因疗法,永久性地提高智力、体力、感官和其他各方面的能力。” “最终,人类的个体寿命有可能被无限制地延长。” (See: Fang Zhouzi. Looking to the Digitalized, Networked, and Geneticized 21st Century. China Reading Weekly, December 29, 1999. 方舟子:《展望数字化、网络化和基因化的二十一世纪》,1999年12月29日《中华读书报》).

[3] Fang’s original Chinese: “事实上,一个人的‘正常’体重的确基本上是由遗传决定的。一个人的胖瘦当然和饮食习惯、食欲有关,但是遗传因素既会影响到饮食习惯、食欲,也会使相同的饮食出现不同的后果。我们已经发现有许多基因与肥胖有关。” (Fang Zhouzi. “I Blame Genetics!” China Youth Daily, July 6, 2005. 方舟子:《“我怪罪遗传!”》,2005年7月6日《中国青年报》).

[4] Zheng Jianyang. Famous Fraud Fighter Fang Zhouzi Was Exposed Stealing Others’ Works. Shenzhen Economic Daily..郑健阳:《“打假”名人方舟子被曝剽窃他人著作》,2011年2月25日《深圳商报》).

[5] Fang’s original Chinese: “《深圳商 报》记者郑健阳装聋作哑,号称关注我的微博,却不知‘葛莘博士为何会远在美国而特意关心方舟子的文章’,不知所谓葛莘就是写了上百万文字诽谤我、支持肖传国的‘方学家’亦明?不知道我对其指控我抄袭一事已在微博和博客上回应过几次了?此人已‘证明’我许多篇文章都是‘抄’的,你继续报。” (See: 2011-2-25 01:19).

[6] Fang’s original Chinese: “和上次媒体人集体污蔑我妻子一样,此事的推手是南都周刊执行传谣主编许庆亮西门不暗。南方报系也该来为朱学勤报仇了。‘方学家’该兴奋了,十年来天天在网上骂我,终于骂上报刊了。” (See: 2011-2-25 01:53).

[7] Fang’s original Chinese: “亦明(葛莘)多年来天天在网上指控我科普文章都是抄的,我要是都去回应,还干不干正事了?他为污蔑我抄袭是如何蒙骗读不懂英文原文的人的,以前已有网友分析过:见《亦明的无知和无理取闹》[t.cn] 和《“方学家”亦明读不懂科普文章是否该算作方舟子的错》[t.cn].” (See: 2011-2-25 02:01).

[8] Yi Ming. Let’s Watch Fang Fan james_hussein_bond’s Shamelessness and Scoundrel. Nov. 13, 2010, [www.rainbowplan.org]. (See: 亦明:《且看方粉james_hussein_bond的无耻和无赖》).

[9] Pan Haidong’s original Chinese: “我已经鉴定过,那篇文章不是抄袭的。” (See: 2011-2-26 01:59).

[10] Zhang Zhaojin’s original Chinese: “我曾在科学世界当编辑,这篇文章是我编发的,经过严格审核,绝无抄袭。请造谣者闭嘴吧。这样只能暴露你的无知和泼妇本性。”(See: 2011-2-26 03:15).

[11] See: 2012-12-25, 01-08 22:31, 01-22 14:39, 01-22 14:42, 02-22 11:00, 03-04 11:03, 03-04 11:24.

[12] Yi Ming. Gigantic cheater in ‘1000 Talents Plan. (亦明:《千人巨骗潘海东》).

[13] Original Chinese: “新安晚报:2月下旬,你的《‘智商’的误区》一文被有人揭露出来说是抄袭、剽窃他人著作,你好像至今没有回应?”“方舟子:这种事很早就有了,十年前我刚开始打假的时候,就有人说我好几篇科普文章是抄袭美国一些杂志,还告到这些杂志去,最后杂志调查后否定了,说不是抄袭。网上说我抄袭的太多了,科普文章是抄的,我写的诗是抄的,散文也是抄的,真是荒唐。你要说《‘智商’的误区》抄袭外国的杂志,一般人外语水平不高还容易被糊弄,但他们说我写的《墙上的阳光》抄袭你们安徽诗人梁小斌的《雪白的墙》,真是笑话,两首诗一比较,里面除了都有一个‘墙’字外,没有任何关系。一些人每天都说我抄袭,所以我不可能也没时间去回应,只是觉得有必要的时候才去回应下。” (See: 杨远亮、李欢、刘建昌:《方舟子:打假不是“一天狂欢”》,2011年3月14日《新安晚报》).

[14] As of March 23, 2013, there are 799 articles on the New Threads’ Newly Arrived containing the word “弱智,” among them, 78 articles are written by Fang. In the forum of the New Threads, there are 3,946 posts containing the word “弱智,” and among them, 383 are Fang’s.

[15] Fang praised his own, as well as his USTC classmates’ “superb IQ” (智商高超) in 2000 (See: 方舟子:《关于中国科大的现状和未来》, XYS20000130). In 2006, Fang laughed at a person, who opposed Fang’s anti-TCM position, having an IQ below 80. (Original Chinese: “在被我判定其智商不足80之后,他越发来劲,又接连写了三篇攻击我的文章,套路都一样,似乎就是为了证明其智商确实不足80。” See: 《中医之争中的智力问题——以“社会学者”侯宁为例》, XYS20061101). In 2012, Fang told his followers: “I invented some expressions, such as ‘humanities fool,’ etc., the purpose is to show that intellectually we are more advanced than you people,” and let them think they are really stupid.” (Original Chinese: “我发明了一些说法,‘文傻’啊什么的,这实际上就是从智力的角度就觉得我比你高,觉得他们这些人就是很傻。” See: Fang Zhouzi. China needs a new Atheism movement. 方舟子:《中国需要一场新无神论思想运动》, XYS20120831).

[16] The dialogue was: Reporter: “I heard some readers saying that your personality is like that of Sheldon in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory, high IQ, low EQ, sometimes he is so serious that unbearable for other people.” Fang: “Ha ha, it’s not like that. In real life, I am not that serious. I separate academic and life very well.” (Original Chinese: “Q:曾见过有读者说觉得你性格有点像美剧《生活大爆炸》里的“谢耳朵”,智商高情商低,有时候较真得让人难忍受。” “A:那也没有,哈哈,我在生活上没有那么较真,我的学术和生活分得很开。” See: Wang Jingxue. Fang Zhouzi: Beyond Personal Tastes, Beyond Arguments. Xinhua Daily Telegraph, Jan. 25, 2013. 王京雪:《对话方舟子:好恶之外,争议之外》,2013年1月25日《新华每日电讯》).

[17] Fang’s original Chinese: “还原主义是一种科学思想,它认为高层次可以还原成低层次、整体可以还原成各组分加以研究。” (See: Fang Zhouzi. The Victory of Reductionism. China Reading Weekly, March 15, 2000. 方舟子:《还原主义的胜利》,2000年3月15日《中华读书报》); “还原是一种完善的研究方法,研究各组分的关系足以推导、解释整体的性质。”(See: Fang Zhouzi. Reductionism and Holism. Studies in Dialectics of Nature, Nov. 2000.《还原主义和整体主义述评》,《自然辩证法研究》2000年11期).

[18] Gould’s criticism against reductionism: “The depth records the link of biological determinism to some of the oldest issues and errors of our philosophical traditions—including reductionism, or the desire to explain partly random, large scale, and irreducibly complex phenomena by deterministic behavior of smallest constituent parts (physical objects by atoms in motion, mental functioning by inherited amount of a central stuff);” “Errors of reductionism and biodeterminism take over in such silly statements as ‘Intelligence is 60 percent genetic and 40 percent environmental.’” (Gould, SJ. Introduction to the Revised and Expanded Edition: Thoughts at Age Fifteen. The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. p.27, p.34).

[19] Fang’s original Chinese: “找到某个特定的“智力基因”的可能性,可以说为零。”

[20] Chorney, MJ., et al. 1998. A Quantitative Trait Locus Associated With Cognitive Ability in Children.Psychol Sci. 9: 159-166. (Note: this study was invalided later. Hill L., et al. 2002. A quantitative trait locus not associated with cognitive ability in children: a failure to replicate. Psychol Sci.13:561-2.) Fisher PJ., et al. 1999. DNA pooling identifies QTLs on chromosome 4 for general cognitive ability in children. Hum Mol Genet. 8:915-22. Plomin R., et al. 2001. A genome-wide scan of 1842 DNA markers for allelic associations with general cognitive ability: a five-stage design using DNA pooling and extreme selected groups. Behav Genet. 31:497-509.

[21] Plomin R. 1999. Genetics and general cognitive ability. Nature 402(6761 Suppl):C25-9.

[22] In An ignorant and presumptuous person majoring humanities raving about genetics (《“文史哲”妄人胡说遗传学》), published on Dec. 23, 2001, Fang wrote: “It really makes people wonder whether they should laugh or cry that a person who majors in humanities, based on his meager qualification of high school biology, spent a half day on an ‘in-depth study,’ read a dozen or so recent important literatures in genetics, then he thought he knew more genetics than a person who has received his biochemistry doctor’s degree in the area of molecular genetics, who has conducted frontier research in molecular genetics for more than ten years, who, although no longer conducts research personally, but due to his job’s nature, reads the newest papers in molecular biology almost every day. That person reprimanded me ‘posing as an expert, pretending as a mainstream representative,’ accused me of spreading ‘true lies.’” (Original Chinese: “一个搞‘文史哲’出身的人,临时抱佛脚,‘仅凭高中生物学的微薄“资历”,用了半天时间“深入研究”了一下,查阅了十几篇近年来重要的遗传学专业文献’,就自以为比一位拿了分子遗传学研究方向的生物化学博士、做过十来年分子遗传学前沿研究、至今虽然不再从事具体研究但因为工作需要几乎每天都还在阅读分子生物学的最新论文的人更懂遗传学,训斥我‘冒充专家,谎称主流’,揭露我散布了‘真正的谎言’,实在是令人啼笑皆非。”)

[23] Davis BD. 1983. Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. Public Interest. 73:41-59.

[24] Gottfredson, LJ., et al. Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994; Editorial. 1997. Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence 24: 13–23.

[25] The original post was in English. See: 2002-04-03 13:59:12.

[26] Fang’s original Chinese: “一个搞社会科学的人写的,没有任何新东西,能说明什么问题?

[27] See: 2002-04-03 16:08:23.

[28] Fang’s original Chinese: “我只是综合学术界较普遍的意见,又不是我的创见她的那些观点都早就被驳斥过,包括我的文章中也提到。

[29] Blinkhorn, S. 1982. What Skulduggery? Nature 296:506.

[30] Fang’s original Chinese: “从你这种比较就说明你的智商不高”; “说你智商不高却偏要自作聪明”; “真是个弱智”. (See: 2002-04-03 18:08:40; 2002-04-04 02:45:10; 2002-04-04 14:34:37).

[31] In 1999, Fang wrote: “U.S. courts convict plagiarism using ironclad evidences: the original author’s technical mistakes, such as citation errors, typos, are made by plagiarists. So some publishers leave some small errors on purpose in their publications for the evidence to accuse other people’s plagiarism.” (Original Chinese: “美国法庭,在认定抄袭时,使用一条铁证:原作有技术性错误的地方(比如引文错误、错别字等),抄袭者也一一跟着犯错。以至有些辞典、目录的出版商,故意留几个无关紧要的、不起眼的小错误,以便用做指控别人抄袭的铁证。” See: Fang Zhouzi. 1999. Did Guo Moruo Plagiarize Qian Mu? House Book, 25(5):21-29. 方舟子:《郭沫若抄袭钱穆了吗?》,1999年5期21-29页). In 2000, Fang wrote: “In American courts, the ‘technical errors’ made by the plagiarists are the ironclad evidences for plagiarism.” (Original Chinese: “在美国法庭上,抄袭者没有意识到的“技术性错误”乃是抄袭的铁证。” See: Fang Zhouzi. The Ironclad Evidence of Plagiarism Committed by www.dwnews.com. 方舟子:《多维新闻网剽窃的铁证》, XYS20000410).

[32] Fang’s original Chinese: “戈达德著作中展示的愚鲁儿童照片。为了增加其‘愚鲁’效果,戈达德故意在照片上用墨水将这些儿童的眼睛涂黑。” (See: p.145.《方舟子破解世界之谜》145页).

[33] Fancher, RE., 1987. Henry Goddard and the Kallikak family photographs. American Psychologist 42:585-590.

[34] See: Carroll, JB. 1995. Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981): A Retrospective Review. Intelligence 21:121-134; Gottfredson. LS. 1998. The General Intelligence Factor. Scientific American Presents 9(4):24-29.

[35] Terman, LM. The Measurement of Intelligence. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916. p.317.

[36] Morrison, D. R. O. 1997. Bad Science, Bad Education. Scientific American, Nov. 1997, 114-118;
Sarle, WS. Bad Science Writing. Nov 13, 1997; Sherman, M. 1998.Trials of Errors. American Scientist, March-April, 1998.

[37] AIR-China. The Verdict No. 004. Feb. 17, 2011.

[38] KIRK, S. A. 1948. An evaluation of the study by Bernardine G. Schmidt entitled, Changes in personal, social, and intellectual behavior of children originally classified as feebleminded. Psychol Bull. 45:321-333.

被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:20AM。
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XIX.pdf (1.63 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (6552 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3951 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (4370 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3518 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (5095 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (4174 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (4002 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3486 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3467 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4825 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4700 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4559 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4544 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (4623 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2718 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (3196 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (3194 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4344 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (6934 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (10793 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



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

This forum powered by Phorum.