A philosopher has thrown down the gauntlet and asked a science maverick to a
duel. Since we are living in the 21st century, to make it "civilized," in the
philosopher's words, whoever loses the contest will commit suicide "in a
civilized manner."
You might think this is a plot from a romantic story penned by Pushkin.
But no, it happens in present-day China, and is more of a raucous farce than
a play of burning passion and green-eyed jealousy.
The philosopher is Li Ming, who claims he has solved the "four-colour
theorem" by using the theories of Lao Tzu and Kant. Actually he cracked the case
six years ago. It all boils down to six pages, three for text and three for
graphs.
"This is a riddle that perplexed Western scholars for 150 years," Li said in
a press interview. "It was not unravelled until they resorted to computers that
crunched numbers for 1,200 consecutive hours."
Knowing that a computer can do more calculations in one second than a human
can in a lifetime, Li did not bother to compete with the machine, but used his
own ingenious method. But he wouldn't reveal how he came to the solution, "for
fear of piracy."
"There is no trust in China. There have been so many cases of academic theft.
Even published articles could be lifted, let alone scientific discoveries, which
would be evident with one glance." That's why Li chose not to publish it, he
said.
Fang Zhouzi is China's best-known crusader against academic fraud. The
US-trained biologist is like a one-man army who uncovers all kinds of academic
misconduct, from doctored credentials to fraudulent research.
Fang questioned the validity of Li's discovery. Publishing the result is the
best way to prevent piracy, and other scientists could go ahead to prove it, he
said.
But he used a tone that was less than respectful, and hinted that Li is just
one of a bunch of "crazy people" in the mathematics field.
Hence the duel, which, as both sides steadfastly maintain, they will win
hands down.
Now, I'm no scientist, natural or liberal. I didn't even know what the
"four-colour theorem" is. According to Wikipedia - which is inconveniently out
of reach from where I work, perhaps to prevent laymen like me from getting into
such high-brow brawls - "the four-colour theorem states that given any plane
separated into regions, such as a political map of the counties of a state, the
regions may be coloured using no more than four colours in such a way that no
two adjacent regions receive the same colour."
The conjecture was first proposed in 1852 and was the first major theorem to
be proved using a computer, reads the entry, as emailed to me from the US.
Still, I'm no clearer as to whether Li Ming or Fang Zhouzi is in the right.
For me, squabbling over an issue of scientific nicety is nothing but normal. But
the atmosphere surrounding this tussle is lamentable.
Supporters of both camps get into mud-slinging overdrives more reminiscent of
Roman gladiatorial games than the polished sideswipes of an American political
campaign. It has been an umpteen-ring circus if you care to follow the blows and
counterblows from each camp. Rarely has a scientific controversy received such
intensive coverage from the hype-prone carnival that is the Chinese media.
Why can't the two sides sit down and talk it through? They can dispute each
other and strengthen their own arguments - online or through academic channels,
if not in one room. Maybe one will convince the other, or maybe they'll combine
their best points and come up with a better line of logic.
It seems to be that, in China, criticism has to be combative. If you are nice
in attitude, you are perceived as being ceremoniously congratulatory or lacking
self-confidence. And you won't grab public attention.
Even if you adopt a neutral tone in criticism, your target may still be
offended. A lot of people have difficulty separating personal insult from
dissension, especially when polite language is eschewed.
That comes from centuries of tradition, when powerful people surrounded
themselves with sycophants and finding fault with the boss was tantamount to
betrayal.
But don't say this is only a Chinese characteristic. Hollywood stars do
exactly the same. However, their insulation is limited. No matter how stellar
their performance, there are always reviewers who will carp at them. So, James
Cameron of Titanic fame became an anomaly when he publicly vented his anger at
the Los Angeles Times film critic.
It's time we elevate the art of giving and taking criticism from malicious
attacks to sensible exchanges.
(China Daily 08/26/2006 page4)
