9月20 日, 《紐約客》發表了一份聲明,回應丘成桐教授於9月18 日向該媒
體發出的指責其誹謗的律師信。原文附後。《紐約客》聲明的前大半部用來敘述
該媒體的事實核對部門所付出的工作量,其中不乏10,000字,4個月,20小時,100次
之類的具體數字。如此敘述的用意十分明顯:既然花了這麼多精力, 既然有這麼
具體的數字,那“流形的命運”一文一定是以事實為根據的了。這一手法確實有效,
初看很容易認同這一假像。

　　答非所問

　　首先,丘成桐律師信沒有質疑《紐約客》在事實核對上的投入多少。它指責
的是“流”文中“虛假和誹謗性的內容”(its false and defamatory content)
。它關注的是這些投入在“流”文中體現出來的效果,是事實核對的結果與“流”
文內容的關係。《紐約客》聲明在不厭其煩地敘述工作量之後,竟一字未提這麼
大的工作量對“流” 文內容的真實性有何貢獻。

　　這種“答非所問”的手法最近世人也領教過。丘成桐對北大提出“假引進”
的指責, 北大先把概念偷換為“引進假”,然後反駁說他引進的都是活生生的真人,
都是有真才實學的人,不是假人。北大拖了好一陣子才想起的這一招,《紐約客》
只需兩天就使出來了。不愧為高手。

　　賣瓜者言

　　另一方面,對於丘成桐律師信中的多項具體指責,《紐約客》在聲明中避而不
答。在關於事實核對的敘述之後,有這麼一句: the article is nuanced and
fair(權且譯為:這篇文章是微妙的和公平的) 。在這一篇不長的聲明中,就這個
nuanced不容易譯成漢語, 也就這個nuanced可能有名堂。Nuanced可以是細微,細
致,微妙,也可以是字裡行間,難以捉摸,模稜兩可,信者說有,不信者說無的意思。
Nuanced可以意味着作者在寫作時字斟句酌,文筆了得。但正因為如此,《紐約客》
的律師選擇Nuanced這個字似乎在暗示不是每個人都看得懂這篇文章,或大家對這
篇文章的理解可能大有不同。換句話說,以小人之心揣測,在法庭上,《紐約客》
的律師可以把“流”文中所有對丘的明喻暗示的攻擊都說成是別人無法理解的贊
譽,從而要求法官不受理或撤銷此案。

　　小時候路邊有賣西瓜者,誇稱“不甜不要錢” 。某君買了一角瓜,吃了一口,
苦不堪言,嚷道: “不甜,退錢!” 賣瓜者接過那角瓜, 也吃了一口: “甜得像蜜
一樣! ” 西瓜之甜蜜尚且能如此Nuanced,要證明“流”文之誹謗恐非易事。

原文

Statement by The New Yorker
Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The New Yorker issued the following statement in response to Howard
Cooper’s letter:

’Manifold Destiny,’ a 10,000-word article by Sylvia Nasar and
David Gruber published in the August 28, 2006 issue of The New Yorker,
is the product of more than four months of thorough, careful reporting
and meticulous fact-checking. Ms. Nasar and Mr. Gruber spent over
twenty hours interviewing Dr. Yau; they conducted approximately 100
other interviews with people in the field; corresponded by email with
Dr. Yau and many others; and traveled to China where they conducted
interviews and attended speeches and events discussed in the
article.In addition, the magazine’s fact-checkers spoke with Dr. Yau
for approximately eight hours, they examined notes, tapes, and
documents gathered by the authors, and the checkers conducted their
own thorough research.Contrary to Dr. Yau’s assertions, the article
is nuanced and fair, and was prepared using ethical standards of
journalism.Dr. Yau, his supporters and his point of view were given
ample space in the article.

We stand by the piece and the journalists.

相關鏈接
http://xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia7/beida148.txt
http://xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia7/beida145.txt
http://www.doctoryau.com
http://www.doctoryau.com/9.18.06.pdf

(XYS20060924)