Criticism can be sensible exchange
By Raymond Zhou

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.

—The Daily Mail-China Daily news exchange item