告诉大家30%是怎么来的
Columbia Chemist Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am
Dear Peter:
I have been following this blog since late June after the many news report in China about he Cao-Zhu paper, because I wanted to get some insight from the mathematicians abroad. I’m not in mathematics, but I have been inerested in history and sociology of science for years. For your inxxxxation, I got my Ph.D in chemisry from Columbia, and now I’m a chemistry professor at Beijing.
Here I’d like to share with you of some first-hand inxxxxation about the Chinese coverage of the Yau press conference on June 3, 2006, and the controversial over it.
My wife is the reporter at the Sciencetime at Beijing who was one of the few reporters at the press conference given by Professor S. T. Yau on June 3, 2006. She has all the original materials including the press release given to them by Professor Yau on June 3, and the recording of the press conference.
If people read those reports on the ScienceTimes, he would agree that the reports by my wife and her colleagues at the ScienceTimes have been the most truthful, fair and authorative on the whole affair so far. If these articles have been availabe in English, many controversy can be easily clarified. Unfortunaely, these reports have generally not been picked up by most people. (Bad news travels fast.)
Since we learned the New Yorker Magazine (I used to be a subscriber of the NYM when I was a New Yorker) article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber, my wife and I were both stunned by the untrutful accounts of many of the events. The account in the NYM article about the media coverage in China only picked up some obviously controversial reports, but never really did serious research on the whole thing. I have to say it is absolutely bad jounalism, and is an indication of lack of professionalism.
Here are some things I may help to clarify.
1. About the contrversy around the credit for solving the Ponicare Conjecture.
The Xinhua News Agency first reported on June 4 that Professor Yang Le told the reporter a division of 50%+25%+30% credit between Hmilton, Perelman and Chinese Scienctits. The news is here:
http://news3.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2006-06/04/content_4644722.htm (in Chinese)
However, on June 9, the same reporter of the Xinhua News Agency
wrote another news in which Yang Le specificly emphasized that he was not an expert in the field to make such judgment and that he was against any attempt to make such judgment. The news is here:
http://beijing.icm2002.org.cn/mcmweb/Three_Said.htw (in Chinese)
Why there were such two completely opposite reports by the same reporter from the Xinhua?
The truth is that before the first news was wrote, Professor Yang Le was not interviewed by the reporter. And after Professor Yang Le’s protest about report to the XinHua reporter, the Xinhua reporter offered in order not to retract the first report he was willing to make a real interview with him in exchange. Believe or not, such unprofessional practice sounds strange, but it does really happen in China. I do not know how such strange number was reached at the beginning, but the truth was that Professor Yang Le was not intviewed by the Xinhua reporter before the interview for the second report.
Unfortunately, this second report has never been noticed. It is fine for ordinary people not to notice it, but it is not acceptable for anybody who is trying to do investigative journalism.
From the recording of the press conference, where 8 reporters from five Chinese media, including the reporter from the XinHua News agency, were pesented, some reporter asked Professor Yau whether Cao-Zhu’s paper can claim all the credit, and Professor Yau specificly said that Hamilton and Perelman’s contributions were the most important, Cao-Zhu’s paper just presented the complete proof and closed the case, and the proof of the Poincare Conjecture was a group effort. There was no mentioning of the division of credit in the press conference. Professor Yang Le was not present at the press conference.
After the press coference, my wife and one of her colleague at the Sciencetimes had an exclusive interview face to face with Professor Yang Le in the same day. There was no such mentioning of percentage in that interview.
When first saw the controversial about the strange 105% number, I myself had the impression that I had read it also from my wife’s report in he Sciencetimes. I even joked her for not being able to make the percentage correct. My wife was angry at me for the wrong impression and she asked me to read all the reports in the Sciencetimes and to find whether there was such report of the moronic percentage. The truth is that there was no such report found in their reports, and also no such thing in the recordings as wellas in the first-hand notes she had, including in the press conference, the inteview with Professr Yang Le on June 3, 2006, and another exclusive interview of the Siencetimes with Professor Yau on June 2 of 2006.
I then spent some time a few days ago on the inernet to do my own research on the 30% credit story. Such research should have been done by Ms. Nasar and her associates. I have to say after going through all this materials, I learned how wrong and the New Yorker article was.
I have aways been telling my wife how unprofessional many of the reporters in China are, and how unfortunate that I have to live with this fact. But I have never expected that people like Professor Nasar can be so unprofessinal in writng the article in the New Yorker magazine.
My wife was a fan of Nasar’s book on Nash, A Beautiul Mind. She has been proud of being assciated with Columbia (where I got my Ph.D), for the prestigious Journalism School and or having Mrs. Naser as her idol. As a real scientist myself and somebody who had read books on the game theory in my teens, I told her years ago that I actually did not like very much the book and the movie. She did not understand why.
Now she finally understand me.
I wondered why Mrs. Nasar did not even try to get any first-hand account of many of the events in China by contacting her peer
journalists before xxxxulating her case. How can people trust her other stories? Was she writng an investigating report or a fiction?
2. Mrs. Nasar and Professor Yang Le
My wife told me that Mrs. Nasar actually met Professor YangLe at the String Theory Conference at Beijing in late June. There was even news photos caught them in the same picture. Professor YangLe said that they briefly chattd or greeted each other there. But Mrs. Nasar never confirmd the 30% percentage story with him.
This is truly the strangest thing for any investigating reporting.
3. About the news coverage in China on the Poincare Conjecture.
Undoubtedly there alwas have serious problms in these reports. As I mentioned above, these problem can only be attributed to the status of lack of professionalism of the reporers, especially in science reporting.
However, for obvious reasons, I do not want to blame the reporters for this situation in China. To understand all these, probably Mrs. Nasar can spend more time in China and try to write an real investigative report on it.
For whatever origin of this situation, to use such unreliable sources of media reports in China before making serious investigtin and to make wild accusations against Professor S. T. Yau is totally untrustworthy and misleading.
4. What I leaned about Professor S. T. Yau?
I have heard many people gossiping about Professor S. T. Yau’s personality before. As a chemist, I had no interest in it. I’d rather pay more attention to the personaities of the people in my own field than in mathematics. After listening to hours of the recordings of him, I have to say that it is definitely not possible that he is the villain as depicted in the New Yorker Magazine. I have to say that he fits perfectly as a great person and a great scientist. These people who have been wildly attacking him are far from the truth and are definitly making a fool of themselves.
I believe that people who care will get the truth of the story eventually. I’m glad that this blog is a place which has provided a excellent platxxxx for discussing it.
In the end, I’d like to suggest people to use their commonsense and to try to find of the facts before making their own judgment on this matter. Finding out the truth is not so difficult. It is unfortunate that some people never try.
Sincerely yours,
Columbia Chemist