|
|
发表于 2007-3-11 21:39:34
|
显示全部楼层
方文刊于2001年10月4日《南方周末》
抄袭来自美国《科学》杂志（Science, 293, pp.2105-2108），作者为格林等人的论文《道德困境的功能磁共振成像（fMRI）研究》（《An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment》），揭露者不详
网友将英文与原文对照如下：
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
Joshua D. Greene,12* R. Brian Sommerville,1 Leigh E. Nystrom,13 John M. Darley,3 Jonathan D. Cohen134
The long-standing rationalist tradition in moral psychology emphasizes the role of reason in moral judgment. A more recent trend places increased emphasis on emotion.
方舟子的中文写作：“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。”
揭露者评：中英文有明显的相关性，不过方舟子有意改动了一些词，可惜这一改在科学性上反而不准确了。原文只是说“强调”，而没说“纯理性”，方舟子根据其非此即彼的“二叉观念”做了修改。
Although both reason and emotion are likely to play important roles in moral judgment, relatively little is known about their neural correlates, the nature of their interaction, and the factors that modulate their respective behavioral influences in the context of moral judgment. In two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using moral dilemmas as probes, we apply the methods of cognitive neuroscience to the study of moral judgment. We argue that moral dilemmas vary systematically in the extent to which they engage emotional processing and that these variations in emotional engagement influence moral judgment. These results may shed light on some puzzling patterns in moral judgment observed by contemporary philosophers.
The present study was inspired by a family of ethical dilemmas familiar to contemporary moral philosophers (1). 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.
方舟子的中文写作：“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。”
揭露者评：连标点符号都差不多。中文写得真好！
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.
方舟子的中文写作：“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。”
揭露者评：“现在”。呵呵，“Most people say no”！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?
方舟子的中文写作：“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？”
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. 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."
方舟子的中文写作：“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。
揭露者评：注意语序有点调换。
可见，“直接利用是不道德的”的解释遇到了麻烦。”
评：在前面“This answer, however, runs into trouble with”。
The present results raise but do not answer a more general question concerning the relation between the aforementioned philosophical and psychological puzzles:
方舟子中文写作：“但是，这个实验其实并没有解决这些道德难题。”
How will a better understanding of the mechanisms that give rise to our moral judgments alter our attitudes toward the moral judgments we make?
方舟子的中文写作：“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？”
其五、《学生剽窃 导师有责》抄袭案
方文2006年6月21刊于《北京科技报》
抄袭来源为美国网站“高校内幕”（www.insidehighered.com）署名为道格．莱德曼、发表于2005年11月1日和2006年6月1日的两篇文章。
方文：
美国学术界有比较规范的处理学术造假的渠道，即便如此，仍然离不开像马特卡这样的业余“打假斗士”的参与，没有他的专注和执著，整个事件就不会暴露出来。即使在事情暴露之后，校方也未必愿意认真对待，因此舆论监督也很有必要。
2003年，托马斯·马特卡(Thomas A. Matrka)在当了十年工程师后，决定回到大学深造，成了美国俄亥俄大学工程院一名硕士研究生。他的课程学得不错，但是到了2004年夏天，他在写毕业 论文时却遇到了麻烦。他的导师多次对他的论文进展表示不满。于是他到学校的图书馆翻阅该导师以前指导的研究生学位论文，想看看有没有可供借鉴之处。
原文：
In 2003, 10 years into his engineering career, he enrolled at Ohio to get a master’s degree. He got good grades, but as he worked on his thesis, he says, his adviser, M.K. Alam, the Moss Professor of Mechanical Engineering, repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with his work. (Alam did not respond to requests for comment for this article.) Hoping for insight into projects that had previously won Alam’s approval, Matrka spent some time in the university’s library in the summer of 2004 thumbing through past theses.
方文：
这一看让他大吃一惊。他注意到不少学位论文的许多段落都非常相似，例如，有4篇分别 写于1997年和1998年的论文的第三章实际上一模一样，还有一篇从以前的论文照抄了50多页。他用4个月的时间，平均每周花费10个小时来比对这些论 文，发现有44篇论文有剽窃的嫌疑。
原文：
He was struck by what he found. As he looked the papers over, Matrka says, he noted similarities — occasionally blatant, extended ones — between many of them. He discovered four theses, for example, in which the third chapters on “fluent and multiphase models” were virtually word for word. Two were from 1997 and two from 1998. Three others, from as many as six years apart, contained paragraphs and drawings that were almost identical. (Matrka provided pages from some of these theses to Inside Higher Ed for review.)
方文：
他认为在学位论文中存在如此大量的剽窃现象，导师不可能不会发现。
原文：
Some of the overlap is so obvious, he says, that it would be impossible for the professors who oversaw the theses not to have known about it.
方文：
他向工程院院长做了反映。院长说他会进行调查，但是实际上并没有采取什么行动。于是马特卡又向更高一级的学校领导反映，包括负责校纪的官员和副教务长，但是他们对此都不感兴趣，甚至劝马特卡不要多事。
原文：
The dean of Ohio’s Russ College of Engineering and Technology, Dennis Irwin……and Matrka first brought them to the attention of Irwin, who Matrka says told him that he would investigate but did not take him up on his offer to share more information……taking his charges to the university ombuds office, an associate provost, and a number of other officials at Ohio and elsewhere. At every stage, he says, officials either have expressed little interest in what he has found, discouraged him, or said it was outside their scope of responsibility.
方文：
马特卡换了导师，通过答辩，在2005年6月顺利毕业，获得硕士学位，离开了俄亥俄大学到一家化工厂工作。但是他继续进行“打假”，向俄亥俄大学理事会和高校认证机构寄去揭发材料，呼吁他们进行调查。他同时也向媒体反映，借助舆论向校方施加压力。一个在2004年才创办、但是已经在美国高校中很受欢迎的网站“高校内幕”在去年11月份最早报道了这个事件。
原文：
Matrka switched advisers and prepared a project thesis (“Design of an Experiment to Measure Plane Strain Flow Stress at Elevated Temperatures”) that passed muster; he earned his degree in June 2005. Though he has left the university, his campaign has continued.
In recent weeks, he has sent packets of materials containing examples of the alleged plagiarism to Ohio University’s Board of Regents, the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology, a national accreditor, and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits Ohio University as a whole. Last month he laid out his allegations before the university’s Graduate Student Senate.
方文：
马特卡向该网站记者出示了剽窃的证据，指出如果学校不对弄虚作假的论文做出处理的话，将会使所有的学位都跟着贬值。“我只是希望他们能够调查此事，把那些剽窃论文从公共记录中撤掉，因为保留它们会玷污所有的人。”
原文：
“They’re compromising the value of the degree of honest students by not distinguishing between the plagiarism and the honest works,” says Matrka.“I’m no expert – I’m one guy over there poking around the library. I just want them to look into it and remove these from the public record, because you’ve tainted all of us by leaving them there.”
方文：
俄亥俄大学工程院院长则对“高校内幕”的记者否认在他们的研究生中普遍存在剽窃行 为，也否认校方没有认真对待马特卡的反映。他说他已调查了马特卡反映的四五起事例，但是法律禁止他透露其细节。
原文：
The dean of Ohio’s Russ College of Engineering and Technology, Dennis Irwin, rejects Matrka’s view that a widespread plagiarism problem exists in the engineering program, and says the former student is wrong to believe that Ohio officials haven’t taken his charges seriously. The college, he says, has investigated the “four or five” cases that Matrka has brought to his attention, and while Irwin asserts that a federal student privacy law prevents him from discussing details of the review……
方文：
院长并批评了马特卡的说法，说他只会提出指控，却没有给出确凿的证据。他说马特卡之所以会对论文中的相似之处大惊小怪，是因为他不熟悉工程学论文的写法，不知道在论文中有相似的段落和插图是正常 的，不能算剽窃。
原文：
Irwin adds: “I know Mr. Matrka is not satisfied with our actions to date, but all I’ve heard are accusations, and I haven’t been presented with any evidence that those accusations are true.”Part of the problem, the dean says, may be a “different in interpretation between what [Matrka] considers to be plagiarism” and the university’s own interpretation. With technical works like engineering theses, he says, “there are going to be similarities, particularly in equations and diagrams.” He adds: “If the same two people worked on the same experiment or apparatus, it is conceivable that they would jointly develop schematic drawing of that that might be used in both of their theses.”
方文：
该院长说学校对剽窃现象是非常重视的，已采取了一些措施来加强对剽窃行为的监督，包括采用专门的软件对论文进行比较，并对学生进行学术道德教育，但是学校并不计划让教师花费时间对图书馆收藏的学位论文进行全面审核。
原文：
Irwin says college officials have also altered their policies in ways that will improve their ability to monitor potential plagiarism in student work in the future, including by requiring electronic submission and using software to check new theses against those previously submitted electronically. But the university has no plans, the dean says, to invest the faculty time necessary for what he calls a “witch hunt” to review the hundreds of past engineering theses and dissertations in the library.
方文：
不过，到今年2月份，俄亥俄大学工程院就改变了态度，宣布已组成一个三人委员会调查马特卡发现的44篇涉嫌剽窃的论文。在调查过程中又发现还有别的论文涉嫌剽窃，总共达55篇。到3月底，该委员会公布了其调查结果，认定其中大多数都构成 不同程度的剽窃，建议将所有剽窃论文从图书馆中撤掉，让剽窃者修改其论文，否则就要吊销其文凭。马特卡批评这对剽窃者太宽宏大量了，而且也没有追究导师的责任。
原文：
……of alleged plagiarism that a college committee investigated in the wake of Matrka’s charges.……They noted that of the 55 graduate theses in which students had plagiarized their own work or others’, the vast majority were overseen by three faculty members, who “either failed to monitor the writing in their advisees’ theses or simply ignored academic honesty, integrity and basically supported academic fraudulence |
|
/1 
IP卡
狗仔卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
楼主