主题：【整理】黎阳：为肖传国说句公道话（一个海归的杯具） -- 迷途笨狼

剽窃铁证：出国际洋相的方舟子

寻正

按：本文根据刘华杰等人揭露方舟子剽窃《科学》杂志文章的相关内容整理而成，最早向《科学》杂志编辑部告发的是肖传国，刘华杰相关文章承认早在他之前，已有网友离乡客作文揭发在先。

摘要：2001年方舟子在《南方周末》发表《科学地解决道德难题？》一文，本文详细回顾方舟子文章与对应的《科学》杂志原文，对比直译或者甚小改动的复述内容，及明确的复述内容。在此基础上，确定方舟子几乎没有原创内容。进一步针对其原创内容检验，发现少到可以忽略不计的原创内容错误成堆。揭露方舟子抱着谴责他的《科学》编辑部来信当着支持他的证据，出了国际洋相还说洋人维护他。最后我以方舟子的判定抄袭剽窃的标准，论证方舟子该文属于剽窃。

全文：

由于本文在最后一节结论时要用到方舟子语录，学习方舟子语录转到相应章节。

一、方舟子文章与原文对比

2001年9月14日，《科学》杂志上发表了J. D. Greene等人报告了对人进行道德判断的研究结果（Science, 293, 2105-2108）。2001年10月4日方舟子在《南方周末》上发表《科学地解决道德难题？》一文。方舟子编译英文冒充原创在下面以逐段列表的方式进行对比，如果是原文翻译或者稍微改动地复述原作者内容，则标记为红色；如果是依据原文写作，明确判定为复述，则标记为橙色；如果属于原创，则为黑色。为方便评论，各段加入序列号。如果一段话来自多个源，则用带圈数字排序。

1. 当代哲学的一个任务是解决道德伦理问题，为此哲学家们经常要辩论一些假想的难题，其中较著名的一个是“电车难题”：假设有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来，前面有两条轨道，一条站着五个人，一条站着一个人。如果不扳道岔，电车将冲向第一条轨道压死五个人。那么是否应该扳道岔，将电车引向另一条轨道，压死上面的那一个人？大多数人会回答应 该，因为牺牲一个人拯救五个人是值得的。

The present study was inspired by a family of ethical dilemmas familiar to contemporary moral philosophers. 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.

2. 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。

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.

3. ②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？①对诸如此类的问题的争论，使得哲学家们有活可干。③一种经典的解释是，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。那么我们再来看一个“电车难题”的变型：假设站着一个人的那条轨道的另一端是跟另一条轨道相连的，即形成一个回路，如果那上面没有这个人，电车会从这条轨道绕回来到另一条轨道压死五个人。在压死这个人后，电车会停下来，不会危及另五个人。在这种情况下，是否应该把电车引向站着一个人的轨道去压死他？虽然这一次，这个人是被直接利用了，大多数人仍然会回答应该。

①Taken together, these two dilemmas create a puzzle for moral philosophers: ②What 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, ③one 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. 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. 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."

4. ①可见，“直接利用是不道德的”的解释遇到了麻烦。②还有人提出了别的解释，但也都有人想到了与之相抵触的例子。至今还未找到一个能被普遍接受的解释。③有心理学家认为，“天桥难题”之所以和“电车难题”的选择结果不同，是因为将一个人推下桥这种做法让人在感情上接受不了，觉得太残忍。④也就是说，感情会影响人们的道德判断。但是哲学家们普遍认为，道德判断应该是在理性思考的基础上做出的，不应带着感情。

①This answer, however, runs into trouble with……

②These are just one proposed solution and one counterexample, but together they illustrate the sort of dialectical difficulties that all proposed solutions to this problem have encountered. If a solution to this problem exists, it is not obvious. That is, there is no set of consistent, readily accessible moral principles that captures people's intuitions concerning what behavior is or is not appropriate in these and similar cases.

③We 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.

④it is this emotional response that accounts for people's tendency to treat these cases differently.

5. ①最近，美国普林斯顿大学的心理学家用实验对这个“感情说”进行了验证。②他们让试验对象对60个难题做出决定，③并用“功能性磁共振影像技术”监测大脑功能区的变化。大脑功能区被激活后，那里的血流和脑氧代谢都增加，用磁共振对大脑进行扫描就可以形象地展现大脑各个功能区的活动情况。这60个难题分为三组：④一组是与人身密切相关(也即可能会调动感情)的道德难题，包括“天桥难题”和其他类似的道德难题(像偷了一个人的内脏器官去拯救五个人，是否应该？在救生艇因超载面临沉没时，是否应该把某个人扔到海里？等等)；⑤一组是与人身关系不密切或无关的非人化的道德难题，包括“电车难题”和类似的道德难题(例如捡到了钱，该不该还给失主？)；⑥还有一组做为空白对照，是与道德无关的难题(例如出门旅行，是坐汽车还是坐火车好？)。

①The present investigation is an attempt to test this more general hypothesis.

②In each of two studies, Experiments 1 and 2, we used a battery of 60 practical dilemmas.

③In each experiment, nine participants responded to each of 60 dilemmas while undergoing brain scanning using fMRI.

Two independent coders evaluated each moral dilemma using three criteria designed to capture the difference between ④the intuitively "up close and personal" (and putatively more emotional) sort of violation exhibited by the footbridge dilemma and ⑤the more intuitively impersonal (and putatively less emotional) violation exhibited by the trolley dilemma. Moral dilemmas meeting these criteria were assigned to the "moral-personal" condition, the others to the "moral-impersonal" condition.

④Typical moral-personal dilemmas included a version of the footbridge dilemma, a case of stealing one person's organs in order to distribute them to five others, and a case of throwing people off a sinking lifeboat.

⑤Typical moral-impersonal dilemmas included a version of the trolley dilemma, a case of keeping money found in a lost wallet, and a case of voting for a policy expected to cause more deaths than its alternatives.

These dilemmas were divided into "moral" and ⑥"non-moral" categories on the basis of the responses of pilot participants. (Typical examples of non-moral dilemmas posed questions about whether to travel by bus or by train given certain time constraints and about which of two coupons to use at a store.)

6. ①结果表明，人们在判断人身化道德难题时，与判断非人化道德难题和非道德难题相比，大脑中与感情有关的区域明显变得活跃，③而与记忆有关的区域则活跃程度明显降低(②以前的研究已表明，人们在处理感情问题时，大脑记忆区域受到抑制)。④少数人对“天桥难题”这类问题做出了“应该”的回答，而他们花的时间要比那些回答“不应该”的人长得多，这也是可以理解的，他们要花更多的时间思考，让理智战胜感情。而对非人化道德难题和非道德难题，回答“应该”和“不应该”所用的时间没有差别。

①Planned comparisons on these areas revealed that medial portions of Brodmann's Areas (BA) 9 and 10 (medial frontal gyrus), BA 31 (posterior cingulate gyrus), and BA 39 (angular gyrus, bilateral) were significantly more active in the moral-personal condition than in the moral-impersonal and the non-moral conditions. Recent functional imaging studies have associated each of these areas with emotion. ②Areas associated with working memory have been found to become less active during emotional processing as compared to periods of cognitive processing. ③BA 46 (middle frontal gyrus, right) and BA 7/40 (parietal lobe, bilateral)--both associated with working memory--were significantly less active in the moral-personal condition than in the other two conditions. In BA 39 (bilateral), BA 46, and BA 7/40 (bilateral), there was no significant difference between the moral-impersonal and the non-moral condition.

④As predicted, responses of "appropriate" (emotionally incongruent) were significantly slower than responses of "inappropriate" (emotionally congruent) within the moral-personal condition, and there was no significant difference in reaction time between responses of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" in the other two conditions.

7. ①这个实验结果，对主流哲学家是个打击，他们向来主张道德判断是纯理性的，而现在却必须考虑其中的感情因素。②但是，这个实验其实并没有解决这些道德难题。它并没有告诉人们，把一个人推下天桥救其他人是对是错，而是告诉人们，为什么人们会做出是对是错的选择。换句话说，它只是揭示了人们做道德判断时的一个心理机制。②有一个问题仍然有待解决：在我们对道德判断的心理机制有了更好的理解之后，是否会影响我们的道德决定？如果会的话，将会有怎样的影响？在我们知道对“天桥难题”的选择原来是受情绪影响后，是否会有更多的人狠下心来理智地选择“应该”？是否应该选择“应该”？哲学家们不必担心失业。

①The long-standing rationalist tradition in moral psychology emphasizes the role of reason in moral judgment. A more recent trend places increased emphasis on emotion.

②Our conclusion, therefore, is descriptive rather than prescriptive. 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.

③The 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?

从上面的对比来看，方舟子原创内容基本上可以忽略不计，然而，在这忽略不计的短短几句话中，还有科学错误。方舟子式的抄袭编译科普有一大特点，那就是，如果抄的东西不是教科书内容，涉及最新进展，方舟子只要展开阐述，他就一定犯科学错误。

二、科学错误

1. 第6段第④句：少数人对“天桥难题”这类问题做出了“应该”的回答，而他们花的时间要比那些回答“不应该”的人长得多……

方舟子没读懂文章，或者没注意到一个科学工作者必然注意到的细节，那就是该研究的分析单位（Unit of Analysis），这导致了他乱说。该研究分两次实验，每次只有9个人参与实验，每个人进行60次测试。其分析单位是人－测试，样本量从人的层次上讲是9，但从其分析单位上讲就达到730了。

原文中比较的是针对moral-personal问题进行肯定回答时与否定回答时反应时间的差异，而这样的问题有很多，从文章中提供的资料来看，肯定是每人都针对某些问题答了是，而针对另外一些答了否，作者比较的是答是与答否的时间差，不是这一些从跟那一些人进行对比。

2. 第7段第①句：这个实验结果，对主流哲学家是个打击，他们向来主张道德判断是纯理性的，而现在却必须考虑其中的感情因素。

原文针对哲学角度几乎是反复强调：

this is an answer to the psychological puzzle, not the philosophical one.

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.

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?

尽管作者反复强调如何理解其实验结果，强调的目的就是防止方舟子式的理解，结果方舟子仍然毫不迟疑地下了一个古怪无比的结论。这个实验结果对主流哲学家是个打击？稍有常识的还算不上哲学家的人，也不致于以为人就是完全理性的。主张道德判断是纯理性的，跟人在现实中受感情影响，完全是两码事。

3. 第7段最后一句：在我们知道对“天桥难题”的选择原来是受情绪影响后，是否会有更多的人狠下心来理智地选择“应该”？是否应该选择“应该”？哲学家们不必担心失业。

如果你习惯于表象思维，比如吃什么补什么；天要下雨，所以娘要嫁人；石棉是石头等等这类的判断能激发你的逻辑感，那么你不会觉得方舟子的说法很古怪。否则，你就会发现方舟子几乎是以十足外行的口吻在评论一项科学研究，而其作者如上所述，曾多达三次强调不能这样理解！

4. 第5段③-④之间：大脑功能区被激活后，那里的血流和脑氧代谢都增加，用磁共振对大脑进行扫描就可以形象地展现大脑各个功能区的活动情况。

首先，神经活动状态跟氧耗与血流量相关，从医学角度上说，二者互为指针，很难说功能区激活后才增加血流与氧耗的，还是先增加血流与氧耗的，或者是同时进行的。其次，功能性磁共振还没有能力“形象地”展现大脑各个功能区的活动情况，再等百年五十年看成不成。

5. 第4段最后一句：但是哲学家们普遍认为，道德判断应该是在理性思考的基础上做出的，不应带着感情。

看看原文作者如何表达的吧：

The long-standing rationalist tradition in moral psychology emphasizes the role of reason in moral judgment.

方舟子需要读点伦理学著作，看看哲学家是如何讨论“道德判断”（moral judgment）的，或者自己做个调查？看看是不是哲学家们就普遍认为道德判断“不应带着感情”。有Greene等人的实验，那么我们有可能“不带着感情”进行道德判断么？没有Greene等人的实验研究，哲学家就愚昧到以为道德判断不应带着感情？或者此后哲学家就改弦更帜，要“带着感情”？

三、《科学》杂志编辑部的结论

方舟子在被人告发之后，想来捏着一把汗，如果《科学》编辑部认定他抄袭，那就惨了。《科学》编辑部发出意见之后，方舟子如获至宝，马上把一封嘲笑与谴责他的信高挂在新语丝，宣称他保留起诉造谣诬蔑者的权利！因为《科学》编辑部判定他没有抄袭。

方舟子欺读者不会英文，或者因为过于信任他而不去检验事实，故而曲解事实。咱们看看《科学》杂志编辑部的信再说：（转自新语丝）

Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of Fang’s article, translated by an independent source. We believe that Fang’s article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in a US publication.

However, a charge of plagiarism would be difficult to uphold since Fang did say the work was performed by researchers at Princeton University, and–unless the translation I have is wrong–he neither implied that the work was his own by witing in the first person nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.

译文：

虽然我不会说汉语，我有一个独立人士翻译过来的方文章的英文版。我们认为方的文章在美国作为写作报道是不可被接受的。他既没有写出该研究中研究者的姓名及其发表的杂志，也没有引用其他科学家的话。所有这些东西是在美国发表一篇写作报道必要的。

但是，剽窃指控却是难于确认，因为方的确说了该项工作是普林斯顿大学的研究者做的，除非我所到的翻译有误，他既没有以第一人称的方式暗示他做了该项研究，也没有直接拷贝那篇《科学》论文的语言。

方舟子的文章是“不可被接受的”。这样的说法，跟指控方舟子剽窃的严重程度相差不多！方舟子得意洋洋地宣称《科学》杂志编辑部认为他没有剽窃，而事实上别人说的是“剽窃指控却是难于确认”。难就难在编辑部的人不懂中文，必须依赖于别人译出方舟子的原文为英文，仅仅从文字上比较，方舟子也不是傻到原文照抄的人（虽然他也的确经常原文照抄照翻）。编辑部不判方舟子抄袭，一者估计已经谴责到位了，二者，不想惹麻烦，因此把鉴定的最终责任用“难于确认”一推了之。事实上方舟子直接拷贝原文语言是极易确认的。

面对《科学》杂志如此严重的指控——“不可被接受的”，方舟子是如何回应的呢？在方舟子回应刘华杰时说，

索性在文后也不像以前那样附上原始论文出处，让那些想诬告的人麻烦一点。一个人热衷于散布谣言，而且是早就被驳斥过的谣言，不仅仅是先天素质、文化知识和心态的问题，更是人品的问题。”

方舟子因为有人找他麻烦，不但对已有劣行无悔过之意，还有要变本加历，无视写作规范的意思，真是强，好人品！而这里提到的“附上原始论文出处”又是怎么一回事呢？方舟子在《南方周末》上发表的文章我已经展示完毕，而方舟子在受到质疑与批评后，他悄悄地在其新语丝版中文章最后加入了这么几个字：（原始论文见Science, 293, 2105-2108）。方舟子的诚信跟他的人品一样好。

四、方舟子自己的结论

认定方舟子在此文中有抄袭一点都不困难，因为方舟子有大量的逐字照抄，然后进行细微修改的段落，这样的文章拿到美国任何一个学校作为学生的作业都会被判定为抄袭，这应不难验证。

方舟子抄袭的第二个重要证据是他缺乏任何原创性语言，仅有几处原创还处处都有科学问题，对所写话题无知，是抄袭的一个最重要的佐证。

针对抄袭，我们还是要用方舟子的标准（2009年10月20日载于新语丝）：

见到科学松鼠会“2009科学嘉年华”的广告词，前面两段话，剽窃自理查德 ·道金斯《拆散彩虹》一书。

桔子帮小帮主《端粒，好好看住别丢了！》一文把端粒比做鞋带两头儿的小塑料套，这个比喻其实是端粒序列的发现者首先采用的。像这种既独特又巧妙的比喻，最好还是说明一下原始出处，人家能想出这个比喻也是费了很多脑细胞的。不说明，也许还算不上剽窃，毕竟科普文章的标准可以宽一些。

但是像这两段广告词，从立意到措辞，都是抄来的，却不给道金斯应有的名誉，就太过分了，不管用什么标准，都算得上剽窃。

当然，国内“众多科学牛人和对科学感兴趣的牛人们”自己做学术研究就喜欢抄别人的东西，搞科普也抄抄，做广告也抄抄，习惯成自然，也许算不得什么。但是想要“在科学里畅游”，还是要讲讲“技术和范式”的。

方舟子指责松鼠会抄袭道金斯，“从立意到措辞，都是抄来的”，涉及这么两段话：

牛顿用三棱镜将白光分解成光谱，揭开了彩虹的秘密，诗人济慈却觉得三棱镜是邪恶的，牛顿摧毁了彩虹的诗意。

果真如此吗？三棱镜解析了彩虹，却让人们懂得如何还原一个彩虹，让人们了解白光蕴藏的绚烂诗意。科学，从来不是美的终结者，而是她的旅伴与盟友。因为科学，我们展开了更多的美，因为美，我们追寻科学。

而道金斯原文，最相近的也无非是：

My title is from Keats, who believed that Newton haddestroyed all the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to the prismaticcolours. Keats could hardly have been more wrong, and my aim is toguide all who are tempted by a similar view towards the oppositeconclusion. Science is, or ought to be, the inspiration for greatpoetry, but I do not have the talent to clinch the argument bydemonstration and must depend, instead on more prosaic persuasion.(Preface: p x)

But the dominant thrust of the book is in favour of good poeticscience, by which I don’t, of course, mean science written in verse butscience inspired by a poetic sense of wonder. (Preface: p xii)

I am ironically amused by how much of what we have discovered so faris a direct extrapolation of unweaving the rainbow. And the poeticbeautry of what that unweaving has new revealed, from the nature of thestars to teh expansion of the universe, could not fail to catch theimagination of Keats; would be bound to send Coleridge into a frenziedreverie; would make Wordsworth’s heart leap up and never before. (ch3 Barcodes in the Stars: p 63)

按方舟子的标准，方舟子上述文章所有着色文字全可判为抄袭！哪里是松鼠会能比的。方舟子整篇文章，“从立意到措辞，都是抄来的”。（方舟子指责松鼠会暴露了自己的无知，他不懂济慈，相应地不懂松鼠会的评论来源，将另述）

方舟子还指责松鼠会另一位作者抄袭比喻，连比喻都要求说明出处，方舟子剽窃的铁帽子如何取得下来？

本文引用地址： http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=348444

* 本文仅代表博主个人观点，与科学网无关。

这个指责有没有造假，方的追随者快来打压

先发到第二位置，要是前面再有加塞的就修改到第一里面（8株钱很宝贵啊），顺带加上一大堆咚咚。

还是那句话，浪子回头是好事，方舟子要勇于承认过去，没什么大不了的。快意恩仇把肖某搞得身败名裂进监狱也符合君子报仇十年不晚的古训！

不管出于什么目的，打假（不是假打）都是好事，生活中很难看到狗咬狗了，名人咬名人是很好的娱乐节目。