Don't ask him to prove his innocence

The Jiang Ping incident was very popular a while ago, and I was very happy when I first saw it. This incident, to me, is purely a side issue. I saw something that I recognized, and after being happy about it, I forgot about it. The changes that followed were unexpected. First, the top 1/2 media outlets pushed it in a special style, and the level went up, and it was very popular for a week. Then various doubts gradually increased, and some doubts gradually approached the edge of defamation after entering the public domain from the private domain.

Later, I saw this

“Professor Yuan Xinyi of Peking University commented on the Jiang Ping incident”
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/hFhbEPGje0ymIr0aF4iP6g

You can take a look at this article. It is very different from the remarks of many other skeptics and is relatively moderate and peaceful.

I can’t comment on Jiang’s case. I’m not a math major and I don’t have that level. After crossing fields, experts and semi-experts can use information asymmetry to attack laymen. It’s not too easy. I can only say a feeling revealed by the language style. I agree with Professor Yuan’s article. I will highlight the key points of my agreement. Yuan’s original words are excerpted:

a. I personally think that Jiang Ping's preliminary results were most likely not obtained by herself.
b. The documents on the Internet cannot be verified, the reliable evidence we have is very limited, and the logical analysis we rely on cannot be considered as empirical evidence. In theory, Jiang Ping may still be wrongly accused.
c. Many people are waiting for Jiang Ping's final results, hoping to determine whether her preliminary results are her own, but in fact her final results cannot prove anything. Because the depth and difficulty of mathematics in the finals are much greater than the preliminary results, even if Jiang Ping's results in the finals are not good, it cannot prove that her preliminary results are false. Even if her final results are very good, everyone will still be caught up in the debate about whether her final results are real.
d. If Jiang Ping finds the above proposals inappropriate, I will personally invite Jiang Ping to visit Peking University to discuss mathematics or future career development with her, and I will bear the expenses.

There are some counter-questions to the doubters. Here is an example:

I don't quite understand one thing. Jiang Ping's case has been very popular recently. Regardless of whether her results are real or not, why are some so-called mathematicians in China willing to criticize her? Even if she cheated, would it have such a big impact? Would a technical secondary school student cause so many professionals to spend so much time and effort analyzing whether she cheated? I think these people really have nothing to do, and their level is probably not that good.

Look, this is the classic, famous “putting aside the facts” series. There are so many “putting aside the facts” series on the Internet, and they are quite justified. People who speak according to this logic, did they get kicked in the head by a donkey or got caught in a door when they were young? One netizen summarized it in one sentence, “If you don't put aside the facts, you can't talk about the series.” Once it rises to putting aside the facts, once it rises to the point that no matter what happens, you can't talk about it. This routine is invincible in the online world of our dynasty. Talking about fantasy novels is not my strong point, although I have always dreamed of writing a YY novel.

There are some rebuttals to the skeptics, and I agree with them. Yuan's article also said the key point of rational rebuttal, “The logical analysis we rely on cannot be considered empirical.” You can say that from a probability perspective, this is so and so, but since it has risen to the level of cheating and character doubts, this is not an ordinary academic disagreement and must be rigorous. I can accept Yuan's article. What he said is, “I personally think that Jiang Ping's preliminary round results are very likely not her own.” This statement is a factual judgment, not a value judgment in the strict sense. The possible interpretation is relatively broad, but I am not here to make a presumption of guilt, so I will not expand on it.

Simply put, the doubts that the public has seen so far have no evidence. In this case, you are free to complain in private, but if it rises to the level of doubting a person's character and moves to the public domain without evidence, it is close to the edge of defamation.

yuange mentioned an article:

What are some famous conjectures in the history of mathematics that did not become theorems because of the existence of counterexamples?
https://www.zhihu.com/question/60144162/answer/532399491

There is a gap between mathematical conjectures and theorems. After trying hundreds of millions of times, we still cannot find counterexamples. We can only say that it is a conjecture. In the end, it was proved that counterexamples exist, but we just can’t find them. What a legendary experience, what a cold ending.

When questioning the character of an ordinary person, don’t talk about how many people can’t do it or how likely it is. Don’t talk about these things. Whoever claims it must provide evidence. You have to cross that gap. The fact that can be confirmed now is that “there is no evidence”.

This is my opinion. If you don't have any evidence, don't question his character in the public domain. This is a bad habit, a bad result of the system's persistent selection and cultivation over the years.

My other point is, for ordinary individuals, don't ask them to prove their innocence. This is a kind of lunatic. We mentally ill people especially despise these lunatics. Patients are not necessarily fellow patients, and we are not.

Why do you have to prove your innocence when others question you? It doesn't make sense. If you want to commit a crime, there are laws to teach you how to behave. As an ordinary person, you can do anything that is not prohibited by law. Why do you have to prove your innocence in front of irrelevant people or people who don't care? Even if you are not innocent, you don't need to explain, and you haven't committed any crime, unless one day the law is changed, saying that everyone has to prove their innocence, or it is changed to some other name that is both appropriate and established. There is no such law yet, so why? This is a kind of procedural justice, and I agree with it.

What a person agrees with and what he opposes is the embodiment of his three views in this world. Some people try to avoid clearly agreeing with and opposing something in unsafe situations in order to maintain the image of being always right. I can't be always right, so I don't need to be dragged down by the shackles of being always right.

One day, I was chatting with my sister.

scz: There is no one who is always right in this world. People make mistakes. The one who never makes mistakes is God.
cby: But there is no God
scz: Yes, so when you find someone who is always right, you have to ask yourself why