9月20 日, 《纽约客》发表了一份声明,回应丘成桐教授于9月18 日向该媒
体发出的指责其诽谤的律师信。原文附后。《纽约客》声明的前大半部用来叙述
该媒体的事实核对部门所付出的工作量,其中不乏10,000字,4个月,20小时,100次
之类的具体数字。如此叙述的用意十分明显:既然花了这么多精力, 既然有这么
具体的数字,那“流形的命运”一文一定是以事实为根据的了。这一手法确实有效,
初看很容易认同这一假像。

　　答非所问

　　首先,丘成桐律师信没有质疑《纽约客》在事实核对上的投入多少。它指责
的是“流”文中“虚假和诽谤性的内容”(its false and defamatory content)
。它关注的是这些投入在“流”文中体现出来的效果,是事实核对的结果与“流”
文内容的关系。《纽约客》声明在不厌其烦地叙述工作量之后,竟一字未提这么
大的工作量对“流” 文内容的真实性有何贡献。

　　这种“答非所问”的手法最近世人也领教过。丘成桐对北大提出“假引进”
的指责, 北大先把概念偷换为“引进假”,然后反驳说他引进的都是活生生的真人,
都是有真才实学的人,不是假人。北大拖了好一阵子才想起的这一招,《纽约客》
只需两天就使出来了。不愧为高手。

　　卖瓜者言

　　另一方面,对于丘成桐律师信中的多项具体指责,《纽约客》在声明中避而不
答。在关于事实核对的叙述之后,有这么一句: the article is nuanced and
fair(权且译为:这篇文章是微妙的和公平的) 。在这一篇不长的声明中,就这个
nuanced不容易译成汉语, 也就这个nuanced可能有名堂。Nuanced可以是细微,细
致,微妙,也可以是字里行间,难以捉摸,模棱两可,信者说有,不信者说无的意思。
Nuanced可以意味着作者在写作时字斟句酌,文笔了得。但正因为如此,《纽约客》
的律师选择Nuanced这个字似乎在暗示不是每个人都看得懂这篇文章,或大家对这
篇文章的理解可能大有不同。换句话说,以小人之心揣测,在法庭上,《纽约客》
的律师可以把“流”文中所有对丘的明喻暗示的攻击都说成是别人无法理解的赞
誉,从而要求法官不受理或撤销此案。

　　小时候路边有卖西瓜者,夸称“不甜不要钱” 。某君买了一角瓜,吃了一口,
苦不堪言,嚷道: “不甜,退钱!” 卖瓜者接过那角瓜, 也吃了一口: “甜得像蜜
一样! ” 西瓜之甜蜜尚且能如此Nuanced,要证明“流”文之诽谤恐非易事。

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.

相关链接
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)