李敖 vs方舟子

Sources of controversy

Both of them are often associated with controversies, partly because they refuse to conform to a key Chinese traditional value - interpersonal harmony when it comes to addressing some sensitive issues. They take a direct and somewhat confrontational approach to commenting on the public enemies they have identified regardless of their social status, with little intent to save their face or reputations.

Li himself seems to stir up controversy by engaging ideological debates, attacking political heavyweights in Taiwan and historical figures/heroes in Mainland China, or revealing his liberal attitudes towards sexuality and his personal romantic encounters; whereas Fang is more interested in exposing the dark side of the Chinese academe, such as plagiarism and other misconducts in relation to academic ethics, than discussing his political inclination or private life. As a result, Li has transformed himself into a famous entertainer (i.e. a sought-after host in the Hong Kong Based Phoenix TV), while Fang is still regarded as a serious academic science fraud-buster.

Ways of confronting controversies

Both of them, as self-proclaimed gatekeepers, are outspoken and courageous in their fights with those influential figures who are deemed corrupted or lacking in integrity. Their uncompromising approaches have incurred enemy hostile fire on various fronts and both them have been ruthless in lauching attacks and counter-attracts through the public media

Li has mainly relied on conventional media such as books, newspaper and TV to launch his personal crusade against social inequities and is well known for this humorous, outrageous and acute styles in his writing or speeches. He is a specialist in influencing people by telling them simple stories, personal anecdotes or even off-colour jokes.

Fang, who vowed to safeguard academic integrity and scientific spirit, has been making the most of his own website (Xin Ye Si 新语丝) to uncover the unethical conducts of researchers and scientists in China; call on Chinese scientists and researchers to uphold the fair play principle in the Chinese science and research community; and co-ordinate debates on some controversial issues, such as GM food or environmental conservation issues. Fang, an ardent supportor of Lu Xun, is unequivocal in criticizing the “bad apples” in the Chinese scientific community by using straightforward and sarcastic tones as well as strong logical reasoning.

Even though both of them are characterised by their independent, maverick and critical spirits, Li’s most powerful weapons have been his ability to sensationalize events (including his 8 years’ ordeal as a political prisoner in Taiwan) and his ability to stay in synch with the masses (particularly the young) by playing the cultural, gender or national identity card. But his viewpoints have not been always backed up by the evidence that could be found in the orthodox or mainstream archives, which is apparently the Achilles' heel of his otherwise very impressive works and speeches. Personally, I found in some of his remarks an overdose of emotional appeal and exaggeration and an underdose of academic rigor and scientific logic.

By contrast, Fang tends to base his arguments or criticisms on stringent logical reasoning and empirical evidence, thanks to years of PhD research training and extensive exposure to the Western scientific research traditions. But Fang’s arguments are not without his weaknesses. His over-reliance on the well-established Western codes of conducts and practices as the only criteria to judge Chinese scientific community may be problematic, mainly because there exist huge discrepancies between the Chinese and the Western societies in the history of scientific developments and in social and cultural milieus. Furthermore, Fang's heavy influence by positivism have hindered his judgements on interdisciplinary works in social science disciplines, which are gradually leaning toward the paradigm of constructivism or post-modernism. For instance, his critiques on religions (e.g. Christianity) by resorting to scientific principles seems somewhat out of place because they respectively belong to two entirely different domains of human existence.