方舟子抄袭案例汇总(亦明)- 中国学术评价网
方舟子在2001年抄袭美国《科学》杂志(by 柯华、离乡客) (3050 查看)
发布: 亦明
日期: December 09, 2010 03:20PM





送交者: 离乡客 2001年10月11日12:58:38 于 [教育与学术]http://www.bbsland.com

One such dilemma is the trolley dilemma: A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will turn the trolley onto an alternate set of tracks where it will kill one person instead of five. Ought you to turn the trolley in order to save five people at the expense of one? Most people say yes.


Now consider a similar problem, the footbridge dilemma. As before, a trolley threatens to kill five people. You are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge that spans the tracks, in between the
oncoming trolley and the five people. In this scenario, the only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge, onto the tracks below. He will die if you do this, but his body will stop
the trolley from reaching the others. Ought you to save the five others by pushing this stranger to his death? Most people say no.

现在,再考虑另一个难题:同样有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来,前方的轨道上站着五个人,处于危险之中。在电车和五个人中间,隔着一座天桥,桥上站着一位陌生的大胖子。拯救这五个人的唯一办法,是把这个大胖子推下天桥,电车将他撞死后就会停下来。那么是否应该把这个人推下桥去拯救五个人?大多数人会对这个 “天桥难题”说不应该。

Taken together, these two dilemmas create a puzzle for moral philosophers: What makes it morally acceptable to sacrifice one life to save five in the trolley dilemma but not in the footbridge dilemma?
Many answers have been proposed. For example, one might suggest, in a Kantian vein, that the difference between these two cases lies in the fact that in the footbridge dilemma one literally uses a fellow human being as a means to some independent end, whereas in the trolley dilemma the unfortunate person just happens to be in the way.

为什么同样是牺牲一个人拯救五个人,人们却会做出不同的道德判断?对诸如此类问题的争论,使得哲学家可以有用武之地了。一种经典的解释是,在“电车难题” 中,牺牲掉的那个人是不幸碰巧站在另一条轨道上,并没有被直接用来拯救另五个人;而在“天桥难题”中,胖子是直接被用来拯救五个人的,因此直接利用一个人的生命来拯救他人,是不道德的。

This answer, however, runs into trouble with a variant of the trolley dilemma in which the track leading to the one person loops around to connect with the track leading to the five people (1). Here we will suppose that without a body on the alternate track, the trolley would, if turned that way, make its way to the other track and kill the five people as well. In this variant, as in the footbridge dilemma, you would use someone's body to stop the trolley from killing the five. Most agree, nevertheless, that it is still appropriate to turn the trolley in this case in spite of the fact that here, too, we have a case of "using."


We maintain that, from a psychological point of view, the crucial difference between the trolley dilemma and the footbridge dilemma lies in the latter's tendency to engage people's emotions in a way
that the former does not. The thought of pushing someone to his death is, we propose, more emotionally salient than the thought of hitting a switch that will cause a trolley to produce similar
consequences, and it is this emotional response that accounts for people's tendency to treat these cases differently.



But this is an answer to the psychological puzzle, not the philosophical one. Our conclusion, therefore, is dexxxxive rather than prexxxxive. We do not claim to have shown any actions or judgments to be morally right or wrong. Nor have we argued that emotional response is the sole determinant of judgments concerning moral dilemmas of the kind discussed in this study. On the contrary,
the behavioral influence of these emotional responses is most strongly suggested in the performance of those participants who judge in spite of their emotions. What has been demonstrated is that there are
systematic variations in the engagement of emotion in moral judgment.


The present results raise but do not answer a more general question concerning the relation between the aforementioned philosophical and psychological puzzles: How will a better understanding of the
mechanisms that give rise to our moral judgments alter our attitudes toward the moral judgments we make?


作者:Joshua D. Greene 等





对于是编译还是原创,方舟子本人在论坛解释如下,俺不作评论 - 离乡客 10/11/01 (2)
支持揭露别的骗子的人同样可以成为其他骗子的帮闲,这叫狗咬狗 - 离乡客 10/11/01 (1)
呵呵,上面漏了引号,不是俺说的,是引方舟子原话给大家看看 - 离乡客 10/11/01 (0)
方舟子在美国。照美国版权法,他是明显侵犯版权了。 - lastone 10/11/01 (0)
如此大段的逐句翻译,索性是连编译的功夫都省了。 - 平方 10/11/01 (1)
呵呵,方博士没有撒谎,他确实不是逐字翻译的。是逐句逐段译的 - 离乡客 10/11/01 (0)
不说方方了,说说这个道德两难 - lg1 10/11/01 (2)
911以后,导弹打民航飞机,似乎也可以归到这个问题 - 离乡客 10/11/01 (1)
在西方国家尤其美国这样做的道德根据是虚伪的 - lg1 10/11/01 (0)




送交者: 方舟子 于 October 10, 2001 05:22:40:

回答: 有种用真名实姓去“举报”我没经授权“翻译” 由 polandspring 于 October 10, 2001 04:00:56:

>many who don't or cannot read the original article in English.


>can you provide any evidence that "科学新闻报道、科普
>小品文当然绝大部份都是报道别人的工作。" What statitics do you have to back it up?


>which part of the following don't you understand, Dr. Fang: "Permission is required before reproducing any content (text, photos, tables, figures) "




我报道、评论的是发表在Science上面的论文 - polandspring (369 bytes) 06:25:10 10/10/01 (2)
弱智,不是早就让你翻译一下,看是怎么"word for word translation"? - 方舟子 (81 bytes) 19:31:41 10/10/01 (0)
I bet you didn't read Science article carefully - Gene (74 bytes) 08:36:25 10/10/01 (0)


被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于01/13/2011 06:31AM。

选项: 回复引用

主题 发布者 已发表
方舟子在2001年抄袭美国《科学》杂志(by 柯华、离乡客) (3050 查看) 亦明 12/09/2010 03:20PM
这个案子实际上是个侵害版权案。 (1817 查看) 圆排骨 09/17/2011 01:49PM

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

This forum powered by Phorum.