Mr. Xin Deyong is a professor at Peking University and a Yangtze River Scholar of the Ministry of Education. He is the author of "The Political Orientation of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty in His Later Years and the Reconstruction of Sima Guang" (hereinafter referred to as "Making Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty"), "The Original Name of the Three Kingdoms Is the History of the Country" and other widely influential articles and masterpieces. He is one of the professors with the most Internet traffic in the field of literature and history.
Based on a serious, comprehensive, in-depth and detailed study of these works, Modu Luohan wrote a long academic review of 37,000 words, known as "the longest public account in history", "This poor award-winning work is not the shame of the author, but the sorrow of the times" (hereinafter referred to as "Sorrow"), and the 60,000-word "985 First-level University Professor's Unforgivable Essay" (hereinafter referred to as "Ten Unforgivable"), which is said to be longer than the "longest public account in history". It criticized the two works from the outside to the inside. It believed that Xin Zuo was wrapped up layer by layer with a large number of half-materials. The author's wishful self-imagination and "self-righteousness"; the article is full of ignorance, ignorance, cover-up, obscurity, imitation and distortion of historical materials and current research status of the topic; there are serious suspicions of "tampering with documents and data" and "shoddy fabrication"; it is a shoddy academic work of the civilian science style that runs counter to the academic spirit.
The length of the article, the thoroughness of the criticism, and the harshness of the wording are rare in academic history. Netizens called the previous article "The 37,000-word "Making Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty" written by a doctoral supervisor at Fudan University, which aroused great repercussions in academic circles across the country.
After the article was published, Hokyou raised various questions in different forms, and Modu Luohan chose to answer them as follows.
Q1. What is your relationship with Mr. Xin Deyong?
Mr. Xin Deyong is in the imperial capital, and Arhat is in the magical capital; Mr. Xin is doing historical research, and Arhat is doing literary research. Forgive me for being ignorant, but before he messed around with "Literature, History and Philosophy", I had neither read his masterpieces, nor did I know much about them, nor did I have the opportunity to know them. We have never met each other, what kind of festivals and grudges can we have?
Q2. Why do you want to crack down on counterfeit Mr. Xin Deyong?
If we must dig deeper into his ulterior motives, as an online writer, Luo Han probably means creating topics, earning fame, increasing traffic, and making some preparations for selling goods in the future.
Other than that, it can only be said that it’s because I can’t bear it due to my straight nature and I really can’t stand it. How could a university professor write such a paper that was rotten from head to toe, from the inside to the outside, with almost no academic flavor? How could the author himself regard it as a treasure?
Q3. How did you come up with the idea of cracking down on counterfeiters Xin Deyong?
As mentioned above, I have no interaction with Mr. Xin Deyong. It was not until Xin Hu published "Literature, History and Philosophy" that I began to pay attention to his life. During this farce that lasted for dozens of days, I was really frightened when I saw that there was such a "professor" in a Chinese university who ignored the facts, had no sense of reason, and was known for being abusive and disruptive.
It’s probably because of my own troubles. In order to clarify the rights and wrongs of the incident, I carefully read Mr. Xin Deyong's self-proclaimed large article and masterpiece "The Political Orientation of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty in His Later Years and the Reconstruction of Sima Guang" (hereinafter referred to as "Making Emperor Wu of the Han"). This reading directly scared me silly. Is this really a big article by a professor from Peking University? Can this really be called an "academic paper"? Can an academic paper be so clumsy? To this end, he wrote a long article of more than 37,000 words called "Sorrow", which is known as "the longest public account in history".
Mr. Xin did not get any advantage from his nonsense about "Literature, History and Philosophy" and the Shandong University Party Committee. After he recovered, he shot back at Peking University, where he worked. I have seen before that Mr. Xin was trying to get into a fight with Peking University over his title of "First-Class Professor". The result was that the net could not be broken, and the fish was still alive and kicking, and continued to dance to become a "First-Class Professor."
At that time, Shanghai was in the midst of an epidemic, and I was writing about it. Unable to withstand repeated requests from my classmates, I took the time to read Mr. Xin Deyong's other "first-level professor's masterpiece" "The Real Name of the Three Kingdoms". Its fakeness and inferiority really exceeded my greatest imagination for college teachers. So I wrote an academic criticism that was longer than the "longest public account in history", a 60,000-word long article "Ten Unpardoned", which was a painful criticism.
Q4. Which problem is more serious, Mr. Xin Deyong’s problem or that of Chen Chunhua and Lu Xiqi?
The incident of Mr. Xin Deyong is not the same as the incident of Chen Chunhua and Lu Xiqi.
Regarding the incident of Professor Chen Chunhua. If we do not consider the cause of the incident, namely, the false propaganda about its relationship with Huawei, nor do we consider its academic level, that is, purely based on the issue of diplomas, we would think that this was an unprovoked incident.
Of course, different diplomas have different gold content. However, a diploma is only a proof of academic qualifications and a starting point for employment and work. If her diploma and resume are not falsified, Mr. Chen originally joined the job with this Clayton University degree certificate, and his academic level is sufficient. As long as the Ministry of Education and Peking University do not stipulate that "anyone who does not have a certified doctoral degree cannot work in a university," then even if this diploma is not good enough, it should not be used as a reason for resignation/resignation. Don’t Cao Xueqin, Pu Songling, Chen Yinke, Qian Mu, and Hua Luogeng also have no diplomas?
Although I personally have no understanding of Professor Chen's academic level, I can at least say this: a real professor without a diploma should be more respected than a real professor with a diploma. True professors of the Water Diploma also view it this way.
Society should allow and encourage multiple channels for talent development, and should also respect diplomas at all levels. If a student has limited qualifications, bad luck, or personal wishes, and does not get into or choose a good school, but instead studies and obtains a diploma from a less well-known vocational school, training school, etc., he can openly make his graduation diploma, which is not very valuable, public. This is not something to be ashamed of, but something to be proud of and respected.
Of course, if she got a fake diploma issued by a fake school that was not legally registered and did not contain corresponding learning content, that would be another matter. Water diploma and fake diploma are two different concepts.
Some of the errors in Mr. Rusic's "Happiness" generally belong to "flaws" related to knowledge, memory, clerical errors, power outages, blind spots, words and sentences, and proofreading. Generally speaking, errors are detailed, local, irrelevant to the overall situation, and can also be corrected and made up for. They certainly need to be avoided, but few people can avoid them completely. Scholars with different disciplinary backgrounds and characteristics will have different views on this. As a literary researcher who often makes similar mistakes, by my own standards, having several such mistakes in a book is not too serious.
These works of Mr. Xin Deyong are systemic, holistic, systematic and incurable errors. There is no way to correct them other than withdrawing and burning them. The nature and severity of its errors are incomparable with the first two, and cannot be compared with each other.
Q5. What are Mr. Xin Deyong’s fundamental academic problems?
The problems of these works have been pointed out, analyzed and criticized in great detail in "Sorrow" and "Unforgiveness". Readers who are curious about its specific content and interested in academics can click at the end of the article to read in detail.
If you want to sum it up in one sentence, you can say this: they are shoddy academic works of the civilian science style that run counter to the academic nature and academic spirit.
It is estimated that some readers cannot believe these conclusions and think that such a statement is too extreme. However, if they carefully read the two original works and my two academic criticisms, I believe they will agree with this conclusion. This is a conclusion reached on the basis of comprehensive, in-depth and systematic reading and analysis, and every word has no origin. I would like to take academic responsibility and legal responsibility for every word of these two long articles and the above-mentioned academic conclusions.
Frankly speaking, the reason why Luohan clings to these works of Mr. Xin Deyong is not because one of its conclusions or a specific argument or a specific knowledge point is inappropriate, but because they are fundamentally at odds with academic research and academic treatises.
In order to prove that this statement is not groundless, we might as well elaborate a little bit here. Readers who are not interested in the academic nature can quickly skip and enter the Q&A in Q6.
Although what is academic is, what is the essence of academic? People's understanding may not be completely consistent. However, from a contemporary standpoint, in the category of literary and historical research, it should be acceptable to most scholars to understand academics as "exploration, dialogue and competition activities based on facts and academic theories on an open platform." This dialogue or competition roughly contains the following three levels:
First of all, the core of scholarship is the pursuit and exploration of truth or truth, or to put it more poetically, it is a dialogue with materials and facts. In this dialogue relationship, the materials and facts are the speakers, while the researcher is the questioner and listener, only expressing his or her understanding when necessary. The main task of the researcher is to comprehensively and deeply explore, discover, understand and display the materials and facts, and to allow the materials and facts and their meaning to present themselves as much as possible. The author's views, arguments, and opinions must flow naturally from the materials and facts. Every sentence and conclusion in academic research must be supported by facts and theories. Scholars cannot just talk about bare conclusions and opinions without proof. In turn, bare conclusions and opinions have no meaning in the academic system.
Secondly, any research is a continuation of previous research and is a time-space dialogue with previous researchers. Under normal circumstances, interlocutors from different time and space and different backgrounds often make different voices. Researchers should, on the premise of comprehensively listening to different voices, use new materials, new theories, or new understandings that are consistent with academic principles as a basis to make new voices and move this research forward.
Thirdly, no matter how much the author hides his clumsiness, his work has to be made public; once the work is published, readers all over the world can watch it as long as they are willing. Whether the author is willing or unwilling, he cannot and cannot prevent readers from reading, commenting, and criticizing; whether the author wants to accept it or not, he has the responsibility and obligation to respond to serious academic comments, questions, and criticisms. Now that you have become a boxer, you must go to the boxing ring to fight with your opponents and make friends with martial arts; if you just hide in your own yard, talk about hair extensions and other deceptive things in front of your disciples, and claim that you are the invincible leader of this sect, you will only become the laughing stock of the world like Mr. Ma Baoguo.
Open, conversational, academic exploration and competition based on practical facts and academic theories make it clear that the purpose of academic research is not to produce more works, but to provide interesting topics, enhance and develop human exploration and communication abilities and emotions, and its underlying purpose is to melt the barriers and distances between people and the world, and between people, and deepen the exchanges and connections between people and the world, and between people. Anything that meets this purpose can be called academic; anything that does not meet or goes against this purpose is fake and shoddy scholarship.
When measured against this standard, it can be clearly seen that Mr. Xin Deyong’s above-mentioned research is indeed contrary to academic research.
Academic research requires the search for objective truth, but Mr. Xin Deyong declares his self-imagination as truth/conclusion without argument or after making random arguments;
Academic research requires researchers to obey facts and materials, but Mr. Xin Deyong uses subjective imagination to command, organize and even distort materials. No matter what the materials and facts are, no matter what past researchers and current critics say, he always sees and uses the half he wants to see and hear, while the other half seems not to exist;
Academic research is an open and well-founded (potential) dialogue with readers, and the academic research that Mr. Xin Deyong understands and practices is "each expresses his own opinion, I talk about my opinions, and others talk about other people's opinions... It is not to argue with others, not to prove that I am better than others, but to find out the academic truth and not to waste my life on unnecessary arguments" ("I Don't Read"). "This is just my own true thoughts. I am conservative and talking to myself. I know that I am humble and humble. I have no intention to discuss with others, nor to win the recognition of others, and I definitely have no intention to judge other people's research." ("Why I should write to make Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty")
Researchers in academic research are similar to athletes in competitions, and Mr. Xin Deyong participates in the competition as an athlete and at the same time announces the results and referees the victory or defeat. No matter how bad your performance is, the result is always a winner. Whether readers, viewers, or opponents, just listen to it, accept it, be convinced, or be convinced if you don't. This is the victory that Mr. Xin imagined, and no one can care about the pleasure between his lips and tongue.
These "researches" and "papers" of Mr. Xin Deyong are his practice of academic understanding, and they are the result of self-talk, self-righteousness, and self-entertainment. In these articles, he says whatever he wants, whatever he says, whatever he wants to say, whatever he says is correct, and you listen to whatever he says; there is no need for reasons and arguments, there is no truth to be said, this is the truth, this is the conclusion, it is up to you whether you like to listen or not. In this world, it is only for you to listen to what he says and for everyone to praise, reward and worship it. How can there be any reason for you to write for him to read and for you to say for him to listen? !
Because it is so domineering and revealing, and because its outer layer is piled up and wrapped with a large amount of three-nothing materials, it looks like it is very knowledgeable, but in fact it is just a pretense, wrapping up its wishful thinking and empty imagination with complexity and complexity. However, no matter how much it is disguised, it cannot change its anti-academic nature. In this kind of works and routines, there is no sense of the will, ability, atmosphere and interest of academic dialogue, as well as the academic spirit of opening the door, exploring the truth, dialogue and communication, honesty and responsibility, respecting facts, stressing academic theory, and proving arguments. It can only be said to be a "fake" academic work and a genuine civil science work.
Q6. Is it fair to use a few works to deny Mr. Xin’s academic level?
As the author's self-designed major articles and masterpieces, these works can certainly reflect the author's academic characteristics, achievements and heights. They will not be isolated and accidental exceptions. As long as you look through Mr. Xin's other works, such as "The Life and Death of Qin Shihuang", "The Discovery of the Yanran Mountain Inscription", "There is no Overlord of Western Chu", "The Twenty-Four Solar Terms Did Not Start at the Beginning of Spring", and "A Study of Qin and Han Administrative Regions and Boundary Geography", you can find that they are all represented by the first two works.
In fact, even if you have not read Mr. Xin Deyong’s works in depth, but have only curiously watched a few Internet incidents caused by Mr. Xin, or some of his interactions with netizens, it is not difficult to find that: listen with ear plugs, talk to yourself, what I say is what I say, you listen to me, and different opinions are nothing. This is not only Mr. Xin Deyong’s basic mode of “academic research”, but also his online life, or the basic mode of interaction with the world. No matter what the objective facts are, no matter how others criticize them, he can turn a blind eye, not listen, and continue to swim happily in his own world. In this world, what Mr. Xin Deyong hates most is probably opening his eyes to see the outside world and opening his ears to hear different and critical opinions.
Readers who did not know much about this saw some seemingly well-founded criticism articles and sometimes asked Mr. Xin Deyong to read and respond. Mr. Xin Deyong was really annoyed and simply wrote a short article called "Don't Read". The article said: "...I don't want to waste my life on unnecessary arguments. I can only seize the time to read what I want to see and do what I want." That's what I'm doing, so my answer is two words: - don't look! Please: you can look at whatever you want, don't come and pull me - okay?" Seeing this, you will know how deeply Mr. Xin Deyong hates and fears the outside world, outside voices, and other people's requests for him to step out of his closed world and see the outside world.
In Mr. Xin Deyong’s opinion, the best way to face these different, critical, and discussion voices is to be out of sight and out of mind. Only in this way can we "find out the academic truth" without interference and without "wasting our lives." Obviously, since there is no noise seeping in, all his discussions naturally become "academic truth" without any challenge. When he closed his eyes and plugged his ears again and again, he discovered the "academic truth" in his imagination again and again, and wrote shocking "essays", and the value of his life was realized and elevated.
Interestingly, in order to eliminate those messy comments from the source, Mr. Xin Deyong worked hard to write and spread them, and on the other hand, he worked hard to limit their spread. A studious classmate asked where he could watch the video replay, and Mr. Xin replied very frankly: "I refuse all replays because many bad people like to comment." The "comments" mentioned here, of course, refer to discussion and critical comments. Mr. Xin Deyong really worked hard not to see things he didn't want to see. His idea seems to be very reasonable: since his imagination and words are already the truth of the universe, and since his relationship with readers is a relationship of speaking and listening, not dialogue and communication, all readers can just listen, praise, eulogize, and reward me, why do they still have to make irresponsible remarks and point fingers at me?
Unfortunately, not all readers are aware of Mr. Xin Deyong’s virtue and courage. One or several readers who are not familiar with the subject can’t help but want to “advise” Mr. Xin Deyong after reading the “Column of First-Class Professor of Liberal Arts || General Catalog of Xin Deyong’s Writings”. Mr. Xin Deyong was really intolerable, and he immediately left a message: "Please, don't come to teach me. You don't understand my situation and appeal." Whether it is begging or ordering, in short, it is a warning to you to shut up and hear it. If you keep talking too much, see how I can block you.
Of course, even a dictator like Xin Deyong who resolutely eliminates noise cannot silence the voices of everyone in the world. Even if he no longer wants to hear these harsh sounds, they may still rattle his eardrums from time to time. Of course, Mr. Xin Deyong also has his own way to deal with these unwelcome voices, which is that no matter what kind of criticism, how the criticism is, or who is criticizing, Mr. Xin Deyong "treats it as fart." Whether these critics are ordinary readers or professional readers, Mr. Xin Deyong will conclude that they "know nothing at all" and are all "bad people."
It seems that by saying this, the critics really "understand nothing at all", and all criticisms are really turned into "farts", and their own imagination immediately turns into a great and correct unpublished opinion, and becomes an unchangeable reality. For example, as long as Mr. Xin Deyong thinks that publishing critical articles in "Literature, History and Philosophy" is not an academic issue, it is not an academic issue; as long as he thinks that he is a "first-level professor", he becomes a "first-level professor". After all, in his own mind and imagination, he is a top-notch first-level professor.
A "scholar" who is so closed-minded, can't hear any noise, does not allow discussion or will not discuss it at all, often curses and blocks people, what a terrible thing it will be if he has more power in his hands.
There is a saying in the field of literary criticism: the writing is like the person. He also said: Literature is people, and people are literature. This sentence may not be applicable in every situation, but at least in relation to Mr. Xin Deyong and his articles, his articles are indeed a reflection or copy of his person. This article is like this, and so is that article.
Netizens expect that in addition to Mr. Xin’s self-designed masterpiece, there will also be non-civilian works and even outstanding academic achievements. They think this is overthinking. If there were, Mr. Xin himself would have already made them a big article and representative, so why should others bother?
Having said that, from the perspective of fans, it is indeed a bit difficult to accept the fact that their idol is originally a piece of rotten wood or carved from mud. Criticism and denial of idols are sometimes even harder to accept than criticism and denial of oneself. However, accept it or not, that is the fact.
Q7. Does Mr. Xin Deyong meet the qualifications of a first-level professor at Peking University?
Colleges and universities are places where humanistic spirit, academic spirit, dialogue spirit and abilities are discussed and cultivated.
With all due respect, if anyone applies for an ordinary teaching position in a three-school university with representative works such as "Making Emperor Wu of Han" and "The Real Name of the Three Kingdoms" (the schools only have different divisions of labor, no distinction between high and low, and there is no discrimination here), they may be kicked out of the school and told: Such academic level and cognition are far from the understanding of colleagues at this school, so they will not be hired. Good luck!
Peking University is a prestigious and key university that many students dream of. Its standards are naturally much higher than those of ordinary three universities. Is it possible for some authors who cannot even meet the standards for ordinary teaching positions at three universities to meet the standards for professors or first-level professors at Peking University?
After making a big fuss in the editorial board of "Literature, History and Philosophy" and the Party Committee of Shandong University, Mr. Xin Deyong refused to be left alone and continued to perform the farce of claiming to be a "first-class professor". He posted his so-called "first-class professor's masterpiece" for public viewing and said: "I am confident that I will openly let the academic community and the whole society test my academic achievements." ("Live broadcast preview: My experience at Peking University" interactive). Luo Han works in a university and can be regarded as a member of the academic community, or at least a member of society. The above is the conclusion in response to Mr. Xin’s test of the academic level of his works. I wonder if Mr. Xin is confident enough to accept this conclusion?
Q8. You have said that Mr. Xin Deyong’s academic performance is so bad. Why is he so popular among society and the school?
This issue is very complex and involves all aspects of academic evaluation.
From a subjective point of view, Mr. Xin Deyong is extremely diligent. Regardless of the quality of his works, there are probably few people in the entire literary and historical circles who can match his quantity and breadth of coverage. This is his advantage and an important reason why he has gained a certain degree of recognition. His often out-of-the-ordinary words and deeds are more likely to attract the attention and popularity of the media and young readers.
A basic reality in today's academia is that the academic division of labor is becoming more and more detailed, and there are few academic peers on the evaluation review committee. In addition to quantity, what else can they look at when evaluating? On the other hand, under the current academic system, experts and scholars are mostly rushing to publish, run projects, compete for titles, and create academic GDP. These things alone are already overwhelming and overwhelming. How many people have the time and leisure to understand the works of others in depth?
Of course, most of the fellow scholars know their own qualities. However, many small peers are not so much an academic community as a community of interests. What is lacking is academic criticism, and what is abundant is mutual encouragement. People's first reaction when they see academic criticism is that there is something going on between them. In such a circle, no one is willing to tell the truth, be a thorn in the side, or offend others. The ultimate result of offending others is to offend yourself. How many people will be in trouble with their own fame and fortune?
The media and non-professional readers naturally like to pursue hot topics and create topics, and their understanding of professional issues is inherently limited. When they see the hundreds of layers of annotations in the work, they can't help but be amazed: How can this person have such extensive knowledge? Little do they know that this is just a game of scissors and paste.
If we talk about it in a larger and more distant sense, this is also related to the fact that modern academics have not entered our country for a long time. People don’t know enough about the nature of academic dialogue, and they are still accustomed to you talking and listening, and what I say and what you say. The listener lacks the training to question and judge. He only looks at who said it, but does not judge whether it is justified. Therefore, there are no more choices except accepting, obeying, following, liking, worshiping, and rewarding.
After understanding this, we can roughly understand why authors of civil sciences can also stand out and sit firmly on the Diaoyutai, eating popular and spicy food while still asking for this and that.
Q9. Did Mr. Xin Deyong respond to your criticism? How did you respond?
After the publication of the 37,000-word "Sorrow", Mr. Xin Deyong first cursed several times angrily in a corner, and then still listed the criticized work as the masterpiece of his first-level professor as if nothing had happened ("Column of First-level Professor of Liberal Arts || General Catalog of Xin Deyong's Writings", April 27), and a few months later, on August 4, he promoted it again in the "Column of First-Class Professors of Liberal Arts" with the following note: "Although some people disagree with my views, so far, I have not seen any different opinions that are enough to make me change my views. I respect all different views, but I do not need to respond to all different voices."
After the publication of the 60,000-word "Ten Unforgiven", Mr. Xin Deyong copied the few book photos that had been discussed and denied by Luo Han as evidence. On the other hand, he reiterated the conclusion that had been fully criticized and denied by Luo Han: "It is called "National Records" and not "Three Kingdoms"."
I don’t know if these words count as a response. If it counts as a response, it is Mr. Xin Deyong’s response; if it does not count, it means there is no response.
In fact, from the beginning of writing, I expected that Mr. Xin Deyong would most likely not respond, or could only respond in this way. Therefore, not only did he not have any expectations for it, but he also advised his friends from time to time not to wait in vain. The reason is very clear: "God is good at scolding people and making trouble, but he is not good at academic discussion." "He has a relatively strong ability at swearing, but weak at academic discussion. Use your strengths and avoid your weaknesses."
As a reader who has read Xin Zuo in depth, if he still has such thoughts, it can only be said that he has not understood it. Don't say that Arhat just used 100,000 words to list and analyze the specific mistakes of his "three non-sticks" and "ten unforgiveness". Even if he used 1 million words to criticize one by one, it would be nothing more than "farts" for Mr. Xin Deyong.
In short, no matter how specific others make their accusations or how well-founded their arguments are, Mr. Xin Deyong will not be wrong. Mr. Xin’s correctness and the mistakes of his critics do not need to be demonstrated or argued. As long as his face does not change, his heart does not beat, he never admits his mistakes, grits his teeth and declares directly, "I am the truth", "He does not even understand basic knowledge", and "there is no need to respond at all", he will be the absolute winner.
This is somewhat like Mr. Ma Baoguo, the famous master of Tai Chi. Even if he is knocked to the ground by three punches and two kicks, as long as the mouth is still there, he has no reason to lose. After being helped up, sitting down, and calming down for a while, you can still criticize your opponent for "not knowing how to do hair extensions, not practicing martial arts, and being a rat's tail juice."
Mr. Xin Deyong’s reply is actually the epitome of his academic research and “academic papers”. Just by looking at his response to academic criticism, we can probably know the ability, characteristics and level of academic dialogue and research he can achieve. We can also probably understand the reason why Luo Han seizes this subject for continuous criticism.
Q10. Are you worried about the siege from Mr. Xin Deyong and his fans?
When I first entered the pit, many teachers and friends advised me not to cause trouble. Readers who have paid attention to the incidents in the editorial office of his "Literature, History and Philosophy" and the "First-Class Professor" incident have probably experienced Mr. Xin Deyong's hobbies, tenacity and skills. It's a pity that at that time, it was really stuck in my throat, I couldn't spit it out, I didn't look forward and backward at all. If you were worried about these things, you probably wouldn’t be writing this series, right?
However, as an author who actively advocates and calls for academic criticism and believes that "without scholarship, there is no criticism; without criticism, there is no scholarship", he has always sincerely welcomed and accepted academic criticism with an open mind. After the writing process and the first draft are completed, there is also a stage to ask friends for criticism and correction.
Specific to this academic debate, because Luo Han’s evaluation is in direct opposition to Mr. Xin Deyong’s self-judgment, and Mr. Xin Deyong himself is speechless, unable to express his reasoning, or disdainful to speak up. In this case, it is especially necessary for professional and non-professional readers from all walks of life, whether they are from the south or the north, whether they originally support Mr. Xin Deyong or those who insist on Luo Han, to counter-criticize these two academic criticisms and conduct a more extensive and in-depth discussion on related issues. It would be even more beneficial if the relevant editors and reviewers could come up with thoughts from another perspective.
Only in this way can the general public have the opportunity to listen and understand, know the right and wrong, and understand what is academic research, what is civil science, what is good scholarship, what is bad scholarship, and what is a true academic community. Otherwise, if everyone is like Mr. Xin Deyong, who writes with his ears covered, reads with his eyes blindfolded, makes a fortune in silence, and treats academic criticism as bullshit, then any academic disagreement, discussion or controversy will become a bloody drama that will never be settled.
In order to encourage criticism and correction from professional and non-professional readers, Luo Han promised that the FD New Academic Circle public account will release all comments without distinction and respond as much as possible; if the article is written with a certain academic quality, the "FD New Academic Circle" official account will be happy to publish or reprint it.
Q11. Do you think Mr. Xin Deyong violated academic ethics and standards?
If we regard them as academic treatises and use academic standards to measure them, they are not just general violations of ethics and norms, but are completely contrary to academic ethics and norms.
In fact, Mr. Xin Deyong's half-hidden, half-blind way of handling the materials has already touched upon the issue of human integrity, not just the issue of academic integrity.
Q12. Do you have any appeal for your critical criticism?
This is just a continuation of the previous two academic criticisms. It will not have any direct demands, let alone harass the party committee of any school. Academic problems still need to be solved in an academic way and by the academic community.
If the appeal is the purpose of writing, then the purpose of writing the series "Arhat in the Demon City vs. Xinshen in the Imperial City" is very clear. It is to help young students understand through case analysis that the two works (Making Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty) and "The True Name of the Three Kingdoms" are extremely rare negative teaching materials. By reading against Arhat's critical articles, one can quickly understand the basic path of academic research.
If there is any greater ambition, it is to hope that our academic circles and society can distinguish between imagination, words and reality. Don't think that what you think is true, what you say is true, and whoever says you are the best in the world is whoever you are, and what level you are. Professors are just a few levels of professors. If they say they are invulnerable, they are indeed invulnerable. If they say the moon is their own back garden, others will not go up to it. I hope that the academic community and society can talk to each other well, with more concrete words and less empty talk that is divorced from specific objects; more reasonable and meaningful words. There should be less unfounded conclusions based on evidence, more equal dialogue, and less arrogant and arbitrary domination and control. I hope that people will not easily listen to others, run away with others, or be abducted by others at any time, but should accept it with an attitude of thinking and questioning. This is true when reading Xin Shen's works, and it should be true when reading Luo Han's articles; conversely, you should be grateful for other people's discussions and criticisms, open your ears, open your mind, listen with an open mind, and make friendly but firm counter-criticisms based on facts and academic theories to different opinions.
In addition, according to academic ethics and norms, if these two academic criticisms are not denied and overturned, then the two works ("Making Emperor Wu of Han" and "The Real Name of the Three Kingdoms") should be withdrawn, so as not to waste more readers' time, waste other people's money, and lower people's IQ. You can also consider withdrawing/returning the corresponding fame and benefits. However, how to deal with it depends on the academic ethics and sense of responsibility of the parties involved. It's useless for others to be anxious.
Of course, if the basic conclusions of the academic criticism of "Sorrow" and "Ten Unforgiveness" are proven to be untenable, Luo Han will definitely bear the corresponding responsibility, withdraw the manuscript as soon as possible, and apologize to the original author and readers.
Machine-translated from the Chinese original 7、魔都罗汉：我为什么打假北大“教授”辛德勇？ (published 2022-11-13). WeChat original ↗