Apart from being an accomplished performer, this guy is also well versed in the art of scaremongering. With a perfectly straight face, he would make statements along these lines:
"Milk is for cows, not people, therefore drinking milk is bad for your health......a sweet potato a day keeps cancer away.......the banana skin is where all its nutrition is, so if you are going to eat banana, you may as well eat rotten banana skins......heating food with a microwave oven will reduce its nutritional content by 97%, so don't do it.......I've read 700 thesis proving that eating animal protein will cause cancer......"
It takes only one sentence to promote a fallacy, but to refute one requires much more than that. In any case, the time allocated to me was barely enough to refute one, maybe two, of the fallacies he promoted, so I could only hope that the audience were able to see through all the fallacies. Although it takes specialist knowledge in biological science and medicine to specifically refute his fallacies, the ridiculousness of these statements should not escape anyone with some common sense.
However, these fallacies have managed to capture the imagination of people on both sides of the strait. A guide to healthy living written by "the doctor" has been topping the sales charts for months, and as a result many have switched from a diet of milk and meat to some sort of "detox diet" that could well cause malnutrition. A presentation by "the doctor" would drive local sales of sweet potato and "anti-cancer" vegetables up a few notches. Is this because of his impressive title or accomplished performance skills? Did he somehow connect with the collective psyche of the masses? Or is this about something else altogether?
An emphasis on the maintenance of health and wellbeing and the sheep syndrome are both enduring characteristics of the Chinese people. Once in a while, a magic portion that promises to cure all diseases will whip the country into a frenzy. We've already seen crazes such as injection of chicken blood, cultivation of black tea fungus, practice of qigong and the consumption of various so-called health products. But then, crazes in the past were grassroots efforts with no originator as such, and followers of the craze often had to expand significant effort to seek credibility from the scientific establishment and government agencies. What we are seeing now are crazes driven by brands build around personalities and "alternativeness". Instead of building credibility through scientific research, their proponents often openly discredit the scientific establishment through their "alternativeness" claim.
I suppose times have changed. In this day and age, espousing alternativeness is nothing to be ashamed of. As mainstream society evolves and authorities of the past become irrelevant, contempt for the mainstream and all that embodies authority may yet, indeed, be trendy.
Even science, once seen as the embodiment of truth as well as the most objective and reliable academic discipline, is now considered by modern China to be a laughing stock. Academics, members of the "intellectual elite" and "opinion leaders" are more than willing to label those who seek to approach questions of science with scientific reasoning and rigour as "scientific ideologues" or simply "superstitious".
Whilst science cannot provide the answer to every question, it is crucial to our understanding of it, especially when it comes to questions pertaining to health and wellbeing. A writer of some renown once asked if the masses who did not understand chemistry and the human body's response to poisoning would have difficulty grasping with the fact that arsenic is poisonous? The fact that he used such an extreme example illustrates that perhaps he could also do with some lessons on scientific reasoning. Whilst arsenic's poisonous properties are obvious for all to see, those whose poisonous properties are not as obvious and does not manifest itself as readily as arsenic can only be identified through scientific research. For example, scientific researches have shown that many Chinese herbal medicine long thought to be non-poisonous are actually highly poisonous.
On the other hand, scientific researches have also debunked urban myths on the poisonous properties of certain things. Indeed, those with specific scientific knowledge in this field can easily explain urban myths such as “if the bugs can’t eat food genetically modified to be pest resistant, how can they possibly be edible by humans”.
The thinking of mainstream society is not necessarily founded upon logic and reason and is, by its very nature, dynamic. However, mainstream science is founded upon solid evidence and change can only occur when even stronger evidence to a different direction is presented. In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As a result, whilst mainstream science may not be correct all the time, it is more likely than not to be correct. Mainstream science is the consensus of outstanding analytical minds based on the comparison of a wide range of evidence, not the unsubstantiated postulation of some persuasive individual.
Therefore, until mainstream science is proven incorrect, it's best to accept it as the truth. It would be unwise to believe an alternative view simply because mainstream science may have gotten it wrong. Entrusting one's body to experiment with "alternative medicine" and "alternative nutrition" may well hurt one's health as well as the hip pocket. If science can't be relied upon, then what can?
But then, this is the age of fakes. In a country where those with an appreciation for science makes up only a few percent of the population and sensationalism reigns over logic and reason, even the worst fake products and most ridiculous theories will not have difficulty finding a large, receptive audience. Moreover, the eyeball driven media and judiciary are more than happy to offer a helping hand. Those who expose the fallacies and frauds committed in the name of science can expect to be convicted of defamation by a judge stating that "Science is developmental, truth is relative. Therefore, no one has the right to accuse anyone else of scientific fraud. In fact, even the word 'fraud' is fraudulent". While the truth is still trying to put on its shoes, the fallacy juggernaut has already traveled the world. As psuedoscience and anti-science bask in its glory, science can be found in a dark corner, quietly licking its wounds.


Del.icio.us
Is there no place for science in modern China?
Translator: 
IT.soldier Level 4
原来汉译英也可以。
09/03/2007
Thunder Level 10 | Blog
To tzigane: 好文。不过本文应该发表到 en.yeeyan.com。。。
09/03/2007
tzigane Level 8 | Blog
雷大,之前就此留了个短讯给你。可以替我转过去英文版吗?
09/03/2007
Thunder Level 10 | Blog
Yep, now it is published on Yeeyan English.
09/04/2007
neuron Level 6
@Tzigane
Great piece, I just read through the story and found it's almost excellent and reads smoothly. You have some perfect knacks for doing the translations. But, I found a couple of small bugs out of the story and want to talk with you here. They're ONLY my opinion. Here's what I want to make perfect and English-friendly:
1. On 10th paragraph: I think you throw away some words in the original paragraph. Translated: On the other hand, some stuff, once thought to be non-toxic, can hardly withstand the test of science, say, many people cast the doubt on genetically modified insect resistant foods that “how can human eat what even bugs can not eat”. But it’s totally unnecessary worry for people with professional science background.
2. I'm sort of unclear why you use urban myth in ..."debunked urban myths on the poisonous properties of certain things." Here's urban legend at Wikipedia: “An urban legend or urban myth is similar to a modern folklore consisting of stories often thought to be factual by those circulating them.” What I perceive is there are only some health and nutrition questions claims people doubt. And Fang also says that. Here's what I did: On the other hand, some stuff, once thought to be non-toxic, can not withstand the test of science, say, many people cast the doubt on genetically modified insect resistant foods that “how can human eat what even bugs can not eat”. But this is totally an unnecessary worry for people with science background.
3. On 7th paragraph: There are changing times. In an increasingly growing multi-cultural society, being alternative is no longer meant to be shameful. But during a crucial period when the old arbiters are down, the mainstream society is changing and new authorities are lacking credibility, disregarding all authorities and mainstreams are in vogue.
4. On the 12th paragraph: I’d like to translate the words into what else could we trust if science itself is NOT what we can trust.
6. In the last paragraph, committed in “those who expose the fallacies and frauds committed in the name of science can expect to be convicted…” is obviously redundant.
Also fraudulent science is supposed to be pseudo-science. I often hear about financial fraudulence and scientific fraud, but I read quite few about so-called fraudulent science. So I think there’s a nomenclature misunderstanding of science which deceive people and fool people. Just google “pseduoscience”, you will find pseudoscience is much more popular than fraudulent science, only in the locution. :-)
7. A small language tip: Although I’m NOT a professional linguist and translator, I hope you can use more active voices of verbs instead of passive voices. As William Safire says, the passive voice should never be used. So the story’s last sentence is a good try for you.
I think Tzigane is a rising translation star, so you can keep doing. And I would like to see more well-written stories from you. Good luck.
10/18/2007
tzigane Level 8 | Blog
neuron, thx for ur very comprehensive feedback :-) my thoughts below:
1. my general approach to translation is to create a translated work that reads just as well as the original. in that case, i didn't think a word for word translation would read well. rather than trying to ensure that every word of the original is included, i basically rewrote that section. did you think anything was lost in translation?
2. i thought urban myth was a nice translation for 风传. btw, i think the "stuff" you referred to is 中草药 - medicinal chinese herbs? again, i just don't think a word for word translation works for this passage.
3. i just read mine again and must say that it was perhaps unnecessarily verbose. however, let me put this to you: do you think an english reader would find your translation as easy to read as you found the chinese version?
4. i think yours is on the right track, mine is just too.....ummm, it just doesn't sound right. how abt this: if we can't trust science, then what can we trust?
6. yep pseudoscience is a much better translation. i must have been too caught up with "fraud" and forgot about doing the science part properly......
7. yeah i sometimes get a bit caught up by that......in fact, that's what i tend to do when i find a passage difficult to translate. something to work on i suppose......
thx mate :-) i generally prefer to translate chinese content but have found good content to be few and far between (compared to the english blogosphere anyway). if you find anything interesting in the future please put in a recommendation here. i can certainly do with morre practice :-)
10/18/2007
Grigo Level 6 | Blog
谢谢你的翻译。我仔细的读了一下中文,感到很遗憾,方舟子自己也没有用科学的根据来回复“博士”,而是很多叙述性的文字。
说实在的,我不知道类似“牛奶是给牛吃的,不是给人吃的,喝牛奶有害健康……一天吃一个红薯“这些话有什么错误之处,”东方人不适应牛奶“,很多文章都这么说,但是该博士对与否,方舟子也没有给出一个证据来。
呵呵,我对翻译没有任何意见,是对这篇原文感到奇怪,而且还用了这么一个title。。。
11/12/2007