主题：【原创】【整理】致高尔夫、南方系，并安慰忘情兄 -- 巅峰背影

Yours is the fourth translation of Dr. Fang's essay to have been sent to me. Three have been from people who believe that Dr. Fang is guilty of plagiarism; one was from a friend of Dr. Fang's who claimed that the translation he sent me proved that Dr. Fang was not guilty of plagiarism. In fact, all of the translations, including the one from Dr. Fang's friend, are extremely similar in langauge and all lay out an identical argument using exactly the same examples. Much of the language, all of the argument, and the vast majority of the examples are drawn verbatim from my essay, which is not cited as a source of the argument, the language or the examples. I am now, therefore, convinced that Dr. Fang has plagiarized my work.

Let me add two important points. One is that under international copyright law, not only is the exact language of an essay protected, but so is the structure of the argument and the set of examples used to bolster the argument. Devising the argument and marshalling the evidence to support it is, after all, just as much a form of intellectual work yielding unique intellectual property as is the crafting of the specific words used to convey the argument. The second point that I want to reiterate is that the Dr. Fang's claim that popularizations are exempt from copyright is absolutely false. An individual who popularizes science (or any other subject) is under just as much obligation as is the original scholar to cite his or her sources or provide other means for the reader to determine what original sources were used in writing the popularization. As an example, you can look at the popular blog on creativity that I write with my wife Michele Root-Bernstein on the Psychology Today website: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine

Sincerely yours,

Bob Root-Bernstein

按：8月4日我给指控我“剽窃”的“母校教授Root-Bernstein”（我不认识他，从未上过他的课或见过他）回了一封信。这封信本不打算公开。但

Root-Bernstein博士将它转给“方学家”公开，“方学家”将其内容和

Root-Bernstein博士的信通过有意误译的方法歪曲。所以还是在这里公开好了。我的导师Zachary Burton博士认为我的这个答复“合理而审慎”。

尊敬的Root-Bernstein博士，

　　1995年我还是密歇根州立大学一名研究生时，我在一个叫alt.chinese.text的网上论坛张贴了一篇短文，当时在中国留学生中有一场关于伪科学的辩论。那篇短文是对一个网上讨论的一个非正式的、随意的跟帖，不是学术论文或作业。它部分地复述了你的文章中的科学判断标准。我把这些科学标准说成是“科学哲学界的共识”，并给出自己的例子解释它。我后来改写了这篇短文，在1999年我的一本书中正式出版，并注明来源为“根据Root-Bernstein的归纳”。2007年在我的另一本书中这些标准又被提及时，我给出文献出处为"On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein,

Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984"（如果没有这一文献出处，我不相信肖传国——这位外科医生由于我揭露了其不正当医疗行为而雇人用辣椒水和锤子袭击我——的支持者能在16年后追踪到文献来源并向你和密歇根州立大学校方举报“剽窃”。在这一答复中我删掉了四名肖传国支持者的电子邮址。）

　　我从未把那些标准说成是我自己的原创思想，也从未复制你的措辞。而且它正式出版时，已注明了引用出处和文献来源。因此根据你不同意但公认的定义，我不认为它构成剽窃或侵犯版权。但是在最初的网帖中我没有明确地提及你的名字是不妥的，我为此道歉。

　　诚挚的，

方是民

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 gave 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