Fang Zhouzi: “Ulcer—Confronting Chinese Academic Corruption,” Hainan Publishing House, June 2001
Pages 328–329
Q: Could you give a few examples to explain the corruption in Chinese academia?
A: The corruption in Chinese academia mainly manifests itself in these several ways:
1. Plagiarism of papers. For example, Professor Yang Jing’an, director of the Artificial Intelligence Application Research Office at Hefei University of Technology, has plagiarized at least five foreign papers over the past few years, and basically copied them word for word from beginning to end, with not a single result of his own. His brazenness is shocking.
1. Plagiarism of papers. For example, Professor Yang Jing’an, director of the Artificial Intelligence Application Research Office at Hefei University of Technology, has plagiarized at least five foreign papers over the past few years, and basically copied them all the way through from beginning to end, with not a single result of his own.
2. Fabricating credentials. For example, Professor Yang Chiming of the Department of Chemistry at Nankai University claims to be the director of the Institute of Life Sciences and Health at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), but in fact UCSD has no such institute at all. “Life Sciences and Health” was merely a business alias Yang Chiming registered with the San Diego city government when he was in the United States. Another example: Yu Baofa, dean of the Shandong Tai Mei Bao Fa Cancer Hospital, was held up by the media as a model of an overseas returnee, but his résumé in the United States was also fabricated.
3. Exaggeration and falsehood. For example, in August last year, Chen Xiaoning was touted as a “top scientist in the world of biological science,” when in fact what she brought back to China was a perfectly ordinary, very easily obtainable gene bank.
4. Commercial scams. For example, “nucleic acid nutrition” is currently popular on the mainland. In fact, anyone with even a little knowledge of biochemistry knows that exogenous nucleic acids cannot be used by the human body; eating too much of them is actually harmful. But some biochemical experts nevertheless help merchants promote them.
////——It is precisely the articles exposing and arguing over these issues that make up the main part of this book.
Judging from Fang Zhouzi’s exposure of and attacks on pseudoscience and academic corruption, he counts as a rather respectable figure. As Jiang Xiaoyuan said: “It is just like a classic scene in a wuxia novel: far away there is an unknown ‘young hero’ who, having completed his training, comes down the mountain and suddenly rises to prominence. Bold, resolute, heedless of consequence, he successively challenges the famed masters from all sides; he overturns several arenas and disrupts several fine matches. Moreover, his inner force runs deep and his blade work is crisp and swift; in several great battles, he never falls behind. In a year or two, he becomes famous throughout the martial world. The masters who set the traps are all in danger, and everyone says, ‘Fang Zhouzi is here!’”
However, Fang Zhouzi’s problem lies precisely in the fact that his passion is too intense—that is, he has too deeply embraced the faith of so-called scientism, to the point that he cannot tolerate anything “unscientific.” Our position, by contrast, is this: “Pseudo”-science of course must be criticized; “anti”-scientific sentiment is also unacceptable. And yet “non”-scientific, “quasi”-scientific things can and should still be respected and protected. Fang Zhouzi is so sensitive to “pseudoscience” that his rejection and ridicule of claims about philosophy, environmental ethics, and harmony between science and religion are no different from his attitude when exposing academic corruption, and his standpoint is just as indiscriminate when confronting pseudo-science.
In fact, Fang Zhouzi is precisely one of the great “deadly enemies” irreconcilable with our Peking University philosophy of science and technology teaching and research office; one need only look at the following articles to know it:
http://column.bokee.com/67898.html
http://column.bokee.com/67723.html
http://column.bokee.com/66356.html
http://www.bundpic.com/pap/20050324/35.htm
For those of us who have studied in the atmosphere of the philosophy department, we should not be easily intimidated by Fang Zhouzi’s outwardly aggressive and overbearing language. Leaving aside whether his arguments are sound, this condescending tone and foul-mouthed rhetoric are no less than what we often encounter among “civilian philosophers.” Of course, in quarrels we too inevitably get heated—today’s “audience” likes the domineering “heroic” style rather than the gentle and courteous temperament of the Confucian scholar. Thus Fang Zhouzi and his New Threads “fans” are obviously far more numerous than those of us in the philosophy department. And if we insist on arguing to the bitter end, the one who comes out ahead can only be Fang Zhouzi—because with his style, the more fiercely he curses, the more it shows his mettle.
Thus, after long contest, Wu Guosheng, Liu Bing, Liu Huajie, Tian Song and the others probably have already begun to sigh at their own inadequacy. Much like in the struggle with civilian philosophers, the best choice in dealing with Fang Zhouzi should be not to confront him head-on. Fang Zhouzi’s contributions in opposing pseudoscience and exposing academic corruption are still worthy of affirmation. He can be taken seriously as a prominent manifestation of the modern phenomenon of “scientism” and treated as a “hypothetical enemy,” but with our present level of skill it is difficult to engage him directly. As Teacher Tian Song said in the article linked above at the fourth link:
One can only follow the “three no’s” policy toward him
We engage in academic discussion in order to understand the other side and reflect on ourselves. Fang Zhouzi is not an “opponent” with whom one can exchange views. If you debate with him, you will feel especially tired. You have to explain again and again: that is not how it was at the time, that is not what I meant. But Fang Zhouzi will insist in one breath that that is exactly what you meant.
Moreover, Fang Zhouzi’s articles have no scholarly value. His understanding of science is nothing more than the level of a hobbyist. For example, he wrote “What Is the Scientific Spirit of Doubt?”—it does not even count as an introduction to philosophy of science.
Not long ago, Sima Nan also said he wanted to act as a peacemaker and bring the two sides together for a bit of communication. I once seriously wrote Sima Nan a long letter, telling him why I could not sit together with Mr. Fang Zhouzi. When playing chess, you need a suitable opponent; skill is one thing, but one’s attitude toward the game is another. If someone is always taking back moves, daring to place your pieces wherever he likes, overturning the table when he loses, and spitting on you whenever he feels like it, would you still play with him?
So we all accepted Professor Jiang Xiaoyuan’s (professor and doctoral supervisor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, director of the Department of History of Science) “three no’s” policy: “no notice, no contact, no rebuttal”—later reformulated as “no swearing, no fighting, no stopping.”
Finally, to return to this book itself, Fang Zhouzi’s criticism and exposure are still quite forceful. Whatever Fang Zhouzi’s attitude may be, my own attitude toward him will always remain one of respect.
January 31, 2006
Latest comments
2006-02-01 17:56:16 [reply]
Let me quietly reveal something: I’m one of Fang’s fans~
gu
2006-02-01 19:11:30 [reply]
I too once used to be a Fang Zhouzi fan. Fang Zhouzi’s enthusiasm, edge, and courage are actually things many people in today’s academic world lack. If you insist on being one of Fang’s fans, then his kind of passion is worth learning from—but by all means do not learn that “thuggishness” of his. No matter how conflicting the views, as a scholar, when speaking one should not swear and foul-mouthedly spew filth.
I mentioned just the other day: the greater the critic, the more the significance of the thought he criticizes often shines all the more brightly. What we truly find objectionable is not Fang Zhouzi’s criticism or his position, but rather his excessively domineering, thuggish, and hair-splitting debating style.
gu
2006-02-01 19:40:10 [reply]
My view of Fang Zhouzi is not just that I have undergone such a transition from adulation to rejection; it seems that Professor Jiang Xiaoyuan has undergone such a transition as well. This book Ulcer was originally proposed by Jiang Xiaoyuan to Fang Zhouzi for compilation and publication, and the preface to the book was also written by Jiang Xiaoyuan; yet now it is still Jiang Xiaoyuan who proposes the “three no’s” policy. The real reason is that Fang Zhouzi has in recent years shown signs of going off the deep end—including Liu Bing, Liu Huajie, and others, whose earliest impression of Fang Zhouzi was often quite favorable. Yet Fang Zhouzi has gone for the jugular. In any case, calling the Peking University philosophy department the “retarded department,” and cursing those scholars who originally thought so highly of him into seeming worse than fools—how can one possibly remain calm? In academic matters, differing viewpoints are welcome and debate is welcome, but do not swear at people! When exposing corruption, cursing people a bit to heighten the momentum is not necessarily a bad thing, after all the corrupt are those who cannot bear the light. But we scholars of philosophy of science and technology are not people who cannot bear the light. We too hope everyone will lay our differences on the table and communicate calmly; yet Fang Zhouzi has no patience and an ugly attitude. For example, he has even repeatedly questioned environmentalists’ motives without any evidence, groundlessly suspecting that there are interests entangled behind them. Is such an attitude scientific? ——Last year in both environmental ethics courses, we read Fang Zhouzi’s criticism articles; logical contradictions and malicious smears in the wording could be pointed out at random in abundance. No wonder Professor Jiang Xiaoyuan, who once favored Fang Zhouzi so much, has also helplessly turned toward the “three no’s” policy.
mist
2006-02-02 15:48:32 [reply]
A lack of trust is an ailment of this society. The suspicion it generates toward many public-benefit actors is unavoidable. I have always not hesitated to speculate about Chinese people with the utmost malice; this is something Lu Xun said, and to this day it remains applicable in many fields….
gu
2006-02-04 19:31:53 [reply]
It is your freedom, Fang Zhouzi, to speculate about me with the utmost malice; if you repeatedly make groundless, sarcastic remarks about me in public, I can only respond with helplessness. Since you insist on likening yourself to Lu Xun and think that swearing is justified, then there is nothing we can do. We have not stopped you from swearing, nor do we have the ability to stop you, so we can only adopt the passive attitude of not noticing, not contacting, and not rebutting. If you truly are as great as Lu Xun, then your brilliance will naturally not be obscured by history. But in any case, do not think that you are the only clever person in the world; be a bit more modest—do you really think you are Lu Xun? “Suspicion is unavoidable” is not wrong, but that does not mean that expressing suspicion indiscriminately, without regard for right or wrong or for occasion, is all reasonable. First, do not be too self-righteous; second, do not be too world-weary and cynical—I hope Fang Zhouzi (and, of course, even more so Mengyang) can always maintain an appropriate degree of modesty and tolerance. Even if one cannot maintain those two things, one should at least adhere to seeking truth from facts, not distort the facts, and be responsible for one’s words and actions.
mist
2006-02-05 10:13:54 [reply]
Ps, it seems that zhw once came to our dorm, and then we talked about the point in your speaking up in the Marxist philosophy class that made people very uncomfortable—ms it was that you often used the word “you” in your remarks.
I still maintain that anyone, in any situation, has the right to suspect; this is the most basic intellectual freedom. ms this point of intellectual freedom has been confirmed in the constitutions of many countries (Google should be able to find it; forgive me for not providing evidence), as for whether it is actually implemented, that is another matter. And is there anyone who objects? I think there is, though of course I still cannot provide proof.
Below I will put forward three points in a progressive form; I do not guarantee the validity of the reasoning, nor do I guarantee that this is reasoning, still less do I guarantee its persuasiveness.
To be responsible, the first thing is to face reality and the truth. I cannot provide proof of this point, so I shall suspend it for the time being.
If this point is deemed unproblematic, I will continue with the next point, namely that the right to know the truth should not be monopolized by a few; everyone should have the right, according to his own will, to pursue the truth. I still cannot provide proof of this point, so I shall suspend it for the time being.
Continuing with the next point: if one realizes that people, after learning the truth, will produce all sorts of unease and confusion, then one should still persist in providing or exposing the truth to people and guide them to overcome this confusion, rather than conceal the truth on that account. I still cannot provide proof of this point, but I can give an example. My graphics card cannot be recognized in ger’s Windows 98, which causes it not to display properly in the 98 system. But one cannot refuse to use this graphics card merely because the 98 system cannot recognize it; one should seek a more advanced system that can recognize it—so now I am plotting to install ger’s XP. Similarly, if people cannot overcome the confusion that follows from recognizing the truth, then they should seek ways to overcome that confusion, rather than conceal the truth. —Of course, I cannot prove the validity of this analogy.
Finally, let me raise a question: responsibility seems a bit ambiguous. Does it have a standard for judgment—or I am not giving a definition because this does not seem to be an easy thing to define—if there is a standard, then what do you think Fang Zhouzi or other critics should do in order to count as responsible?
It seems that responsibility is different for people in different social roles.
mist
2006-02-05 10:27:03 [reply]
Regarding self-righteousness and world-weariness, there are a few points that still seem worth discussing.
1. On the face of it, self-righteousness means one believes oneself to be correct. I will not comment on the positive or negative valence of the Chinese term; praise and blame should not be used in academic dialogue, otherwise it seems easy to degenerate into mutual abuse. (If this point really must involve praise-and-blame connotations, then take this post of mine to be nonsense.) So when we insist on our own views, if we do not insist on the views we ourselves believe to be correct, then what kind of views should we insist on?
2. World-weariness and cynicism seem to refer to launching a fierce bombardment against the entire social atmosphere. I think—my personal view—that Fang seems to be bombarding only the atmosphere he considers wrong. It seems Fang has not yet reached the point of world-weariness and cynicism. ms one cannot, simply because the other side opposes oneself, conclude that the other side is world-weary and cynical…
Another example is Ji Kang: many people seem to think Ji Kang hated ritual and norms enough, but Yang lh believes that the men of the Bamboo Grove actually loved ritual and norms more deeply than anyone else. —I do not guarantee the validity of the example, nor do I guarantee that this is Yang’s real meaning, although this is roughly what he said, nor do I guarantee the persuasiveness of Yang’s interpretation.
gu
2006-02-05 16:59:32 [reply]
I’d like to raise a few issues. They are not necessarily rebuttals to you; some are responses, some are supplements:
First: freedom of thought and freedom of speech are not the same thing. In Kierkegaard’s Diaries, selected item 14: “People have almost never made use of the freedom they already possess, such as freedom of thought; instead, they go about demanding something called freedom of speech.”
Second: exposing the truth is a good thing, but there are two issues here. First, “distortion” is at least as bad a thing as “concealment.” Second, the exposure of truth can take different forms and attitudes in different situations. To give two rather inapt examples: one is, for instance, when a doctor reveals the truth to a terminally ill patient and the patient’s family—of course, the premise is that truth must always be revealed through some kind of language, but plainly a doctor who is good at using tactful language is more lovable; another is the story of “looking at plums to quench thirst.” Things like “reinforcements will arrive at once” or “the supplies will last for another half year” are hardly rare in military history. In many perilous situations, speaking bluntly and directly will certainly lead to the collapse of morale, disintegration, and catastrophic defeat, whereas lying may bring about results that, in the long run, are more desirable for the war or for the soldiers. So what should those brave people who know the truth do in such moments? —These two examples are not apt here, but what I want to say is that “exposing the truth” in any situation, by any means and in any attitude, cannot simply and automatically be the best thing.
Third: the concept of responsibility may be hard to define clearly, but it is easier to judge which words and deeds are irresponsible. You may express suspicion of others even when the evidence is not conclusive, but afterward you must always be responsible for what you said and did: clarify what should be clarified, apologize where an apology is due, eliminate the effects where they need to be eliminated; if all you are trying to do is muddle through with a light touch, then that is irresponsibility. Moreover, as you said, “if a person, upon realizing that people may become uneasy and confused after learning the truth, still ought to insist on providing or revealing the truth to people and guiding them to overcome these confusions,” —the latter half after the word “and” is quite important. In addition to making sure that one’s own words and deeds are as fact-based as possible, one must also strive to shoulder the responsibility of helping the audience understand and guiding them so as to minimize negative effects. For example, adult sex education for children cannot simply be a matter of putting the “truth” out there and calling it a day; one must also responsibly guide children to understand it in a healthy way. There are too many truths in the world that need to be exposed. If one could ensure that all relevant information is fully described to the audience and guarantee that the audience could understand it rationally without misunderstanding or unnecessary confusion, that would of course be best. But in reality that cannot be done so perfectly; then scholars need to respect themselves as scholars, distinguish the primary from the secondary, distinguish the occasion, know when to press and when to hold back, understand respect and consideration, pay attention to tone and method, rather than using “exposing the truth” and “telling it like it is” as a talisman while disregarding everything else.
Fourth: as for self-righteousness, actually, from my earlier discussions, I have always placed great emphasis on confidence in my own views. In that sense, I also count as “self-righteous” in a certain respect. But note that what I said was that I hope not to be “too” self-righteous; what I mean is that self-righteousness must be kept within bounds. However confident one may be in one’s own views, it is never excessive to be confident—but at the same time one should also respect other people’s views. Just because you are a smart person does not mean there are no smart people who hold views opposed to yours. If you say “I am a smart person,” that does not necessarily count as “too self-righteous,” but if you call your opponent “an idiot,” then that is “too self-righteous”! Likewise, philosophers all need a strong spirit of doubt and criticism toward the present age; in that sense, being “cynical about the world” can be praise for a philosopher. I still use the phrase “too” here. In this respect, I also feel that Fang Zhouzi has not gone to excess, which is why I said that Fang Zhouzi’s passion and sharpness are precisely what many scholars lack. When I said things like “I hope not to be too cynical,” it was originally out of good will. Although I have felt repelled by some of Fang Zhouzi’s words and deeds, I have always respected him. I do not want him to slide into excessive extremism; I want his passion and sharpness to bring about the greatest possible positive effect.
PS: Ever since being criticized, I have used “you” less and less in my articles. In fact, in some pieces written immediately after it was pointed out to me, I have voluntarily used “I” and “some people” to replace “you.” However, since Fang Zhouzi’s argumentative writing is extremely forceful, and his criticisms are often made by name, with a level of ferocity in diction that I am nowhere near able to match, then when speaking of him, borrowing the second person again to enhance the momentum should, I suppose, be something Fang Zhouzi can understand, right?
mist
2006-02-05 18:08:28 [reply]
A response then, though I still cannot guarantee the effectiveness of what I say. According to wanghm’s custom, classroom dialogue does not exceed two rounds, and then it ends. So this is my final response regarding this article. —Of course, as for my view of wanghm, I think one would have a clearer understanding after actually getting in touch with him. I think, naturally, what yanglh said—that one can tell by smell that it stinks—is also reasonable.
1. The freedom to doubt before expressing oneself seems to be freedom of thought; after it is expressed, this freedom to doubt seems to become freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought seem to fall within the same scope of protection.
2. First, distorting the truth should not be understood as what we were talking about, namely exposing the truth, I think. Second, as for the manner of exposing the truth, this is an art; it really is not a simple matter, and I think so too.
As for lying, lying is indeed acceptable in certain situations. In an ethics class, we once discussed a rather controversial example: a is a robber, pursuing b. b has gone into hiding, and c knows where b is hiding. At this point, a asks c whether he knows where b has gone. c faces two choices: be honest, and b dies; or be dishonest, and tell a lie. Lying is not a virtue.
We note that although there are cases in which honesty does not necessarily bring about a good result, this does not mean that honesty has lost its value, nor does lying thereby become a universally prevailing moral norm. Likewise, the pursuit of truth should also be like this, I think.
3. I basically agree with you. However, regarding the scholar’s responsibility, I think the responsibility scholars bear should also include pointing out the way forward after the truth has been exposed. One cannot simply use “it cannot be done perfectly” as an excuse to retreat just because it seems difficult, for it seems that the road is made by walking it, and whether a method is effective is not something that can be known merely through careful thought; one must also put it into practice in order to discover problems and revise it. Of course, whether a scholar’s responsibility is limited only to academic research is a view some people hold; I, however, think there should also be the aspect of “Serve the ruler above Yao and Shun, and then make the customs of the people pure.” Of course, when it comes to concern for the nation and the world, everyone is patriotic; it is just that each person thinks the best way differs.
4. What is said in the fourth point and in the Ps is indeed very true, but it seems that the ones currently reading your words are us, not Fang, so I always feel a bit of a sting, to put it that way~~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply