|
|
方舟子是最打的造價者：
(http://bbs./education/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=276388)
方舟子在其最新討施公文《向國家自然科學基金委舉報施一公涉嫌造假》中說：
『施一公去年曾給《普林斯頓校友周刊》寫信聲稱中國老百姓是不配享有美國式
的民主和言論自由的（http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/ar ... 9-0307/letters.html），也許因此不屑於讓中國公眾知情，那麼至少也應給國家自然科學基金委員會監督委員會一個中國式的解釋。』
方舟子舉報說「施一公寫信聲稱中國老百姓是不配享有美國式的民主和言論自由」。
那麼施一公到底是如何說的：
Yigong Shi：
『There is no doubt in my mind that democracy in the U.S. simply does not work in China. Singing high praises of freedom of speech and democracy is one matter; advancing a vast country of extreme diversity is another. 』
我來簡單翻譯一下，大意是【毫無疑問，在我腦海里，美式民主一點都不適用於中國。高唱言論自由和民主是一回事，使一個非常複雜多元的大國進步，又是另一回事。】
我怎麼看，都看不出施一公有所謂「中國老百姓是不配享有美國式的民主和言論自由」的意思。
施一公強調的是美式民主不能在中國有效，而非說「中國老百姓是不配享有美國式的民主和言論自由」。這二者之意的差別，方舟子當然是知道的，但是，他以為只有他懂英語，用如此惡毒的方式去攻擊和誣衊對手。
你可以不同意施一公的看法，但是，施一公的意思絕對不是方舟子所聲稱和指控的意思。
方舟子曾說「做美國大學的教授不適合他的性格」，那麼，方舟子這句的意思難道應該是「方舟子不配享受美國大學教授的待遇」嗎？
===============================
(施的原文)
Writing about China
Similar to the vast majority of China-related articles in the mainstream media, the article 「Rules of engagement」 (feature, Jan. 24) is written to the taste of American readership and appears to be a balanced report of representative opinions.
I worry about the impact of the article, however. While the content is truthful in isolation, the article may have reinforced the misunderstanding and unrealistic expectations of China by the American public.
I actively participated in the pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. I came to the United States in 1990. During the following years, I was shocked to witness the extremely negative portrayal and demonization of China by American media. Don』t get me wrong — I agree that what was reported has been mostly truthful in isolation. However, by relentlessly focusing on a tiny spot of a vast country of extreme diversity, the American media give American people an extremely biased view of China.
This problem is not remedied in 「Rules of engagement,」 which failed to give adequate coverage from the Chinese side. If we do not understand how China thinks of our view on engagement, how can we define rules of engagement? Aren』t we simply lecturing the Chinese on how to engage and how to follow our rules? Aren』t we imposing our values and ideas on the Chinese without understanding them first?
The fundamental issue, both here and on issues related to China, is not freedom of speech, but mutual understanding. To me, Americans simply do not have a basic understanding of China or the Chinese, and American media have yet to make a serious endeavor to cover China in a fair and balanced manner. Much too often, when an effort is made, interjecting biased comment immediately defeats the purpose. China is changing fast in all aspects of life, but our views on China have been stagnant.
I spent the first 23 years of my life in China, having lived in a village of extreme poverty, a small town of frugality and ethnic division, a provincial capital with a booming economy and social changes, and the capital city of China. There is no doubt in my mind that democracy in the U.S. simply does not work in China. Singing high praises of freedom of speech and democracy is one matter; advancing a vast country of extreme diversity is another.
Shouldn』t Iraq be a lesson for us all? Keep in mind: The complexity in Iraq is not in the same order of magnitude as that in China.
YIGONG SHI
Professor, Department of Molecular Biology
大家說說方舟子是不是在造假？ |
|
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發
悔悟卡
匿名卡