Why Experts Have Lost Credibility Worldwide
将视频脚本翻译成英文，然后用英文评论
现在世界上还有多少有良知的科学家？
S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 2020 Vol. 577 Issue 7788 Pages 9
Accession Number: 31889172 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
“Last month, I got a private Twitter message from a postdoc bruised by the clash between science as it is and how it should be. He had published a commentary in which he pointed out errors in a famous researcher’s paper. The critique was accurate, important and measured — a service to his field. But it caused him problems: his adviser told him that publishing the criticism had crossed a line, and he should never do it again.”
Liu, Yue, The New Dark Age: Modern Academic Publishing as the Most Autocratic Censorship Era in Scientific History (October 29, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5679442 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5679442
Commentary: How Many Scientists Still Have Conscience Today?
The question is not rhetorical:
How many scientists today still have the courage to express pain in the face of error?
The example cited by Simine Vazire in Nature is revealing. A postdoctoral researcher identified clear errors in a prominent scientist’s work—carefully, accurately, and responsibly. Instead of being recognized, he was warned by his adviser never to do it again.
This is not an isolated incident. It is a signal.
It shows a growing divide between:
science as it should be — open, self-correcting, truth-seeking
science as it is — cautious, hierarchical, and often resistant to criticism
In such an environment, conscience becomes costly.
To point out errors is no longer simply an intellectual act; it becomes a career risk. Young researchers quickly learn the unwritten rules:
Do not challenge authority
Do not expose mistakes by influential figures
Do not “cross the line”
Under these conditions, three types of scientists emerge—echoing the categories in the video:
Those who confront error openly — rare, and often marginalized
Those who see the problem but speak indirectly — cautious, adaptive
Those who see the problem and still praise the system — conformists
The tragedy is not that the first group is small. The tragedy is that the third group is growing.
In earlier eras, figures like Socrates or Richard Feynman embodied a culture where questioning was central to intellectual life. Today, institutional structures—publication systems, career incentives, and reputational hierarchies—often discourage that same spirit.
This does not mean that science as a whole has lost its value. But it does mean:
The institutional environment increasingly selects for compliance over conscience.
And when that happens, error is no longer merely possible—it becomes systematically protected.
Conclusion
The real question is not simply how many scientists still have conscience.
It is:
How many can afford to act on it?
Until scientific culture once again rewards those who expose error—rather than punishing them—conscience will remain rare, not because it does not exist, but because it is too costly to express.
下面先给出视频脚本的英文翻译（已整理为自然流畅的英文表达），然后是一篇有力度的英文评论，回应“当今世界还有多少有良知的科学家”这一问题。
English Translation of the Script
(00:00:02)
To express pain in the face of darkness is a sign of conscience.
To face darkness and not dare to express pain is cowardice.
To face darkness, not express pain, and instead praise it—claiming happiness—this is moral degradation.
For example, in the Wei-Jin period, there were two close friends: Ji Kang and Ruan Ji.
(00:00:22)
I once said that when Ji Kang stood at the execution ground, that place itself represented a kind of height—a height that not everyone can reach. His friend Ruan Ji could not reach it.
There are certain kinds of death that ordinary people are not capable of. You must remember this:
Can you be nailed to a cross?
Can you be sentenced to death by the court of Athens and drink poison like Socrates?
You are not qualified for that.
(00:00:47)
Only those who see the abyss ahead and still leap forward without hesitation can become what we call sages. Only at that level can one be worthy of such a death. Ji Kang reached that level. Ruan Ji did not.
Ji Kang knew the danger—he rushed forward and accepted death.
But Ruan Ji was different. He was very intelligent. He would never directly crash into a wall.
(00:01:15)
However, there is one thing: although Ruan Ji was cautious and avoided direct confrontation, he still insisted on expressing his conscience—at least expressing his pain—through subtle and indirect writing.
(00:01:32)
To express pain in the face of darkness is conscience.
To remain silent is cowardice.
To praise the darkness is moral corruption.
Ruan Ji, at least, belonged to the first category. He never claimed to be happy—he acknowledged his pain, even if indirectly.
(00:01:58)
So I once said: Ruan Ji’s style was not an artistic choice, but a political one.
Ji Kang had height; Ruan Ji had depth.
Both, in their own ways, were people who upheld their conscience.
(00:00:02):
面对黑暗能够表达痛苦是一种良知面对黑暗不敢表达痛苦是一种怯落面对黑暗不但不表达痛苦还要歌颂这个黑暗说自己很快乐这叫下流比如说我已经蓝白潮一个叫吉康一个叫阮吉这两个好朋友对吧
(00:00:22):
我在那个风流区里面讲到我说齐康子以后站到了刑场上我说这个刑场就是个高度这个高度不是每个人都能上得去的他的好朋友软机就上不去有些死亡不是你普通人能有的知道吗你一定要记住这一条你能定到十字架上吗对吧你能够被雅典的法庭判死刑然后一被毒要把你堵死吗你没这资格
(00:00:47):
知道吗只有这些人看到了前面的万丈悬崖仍然义无反顾的跳下去才能够成为什么呀圣人生命只有到这个境界里才能配得上这样的一种死法吉康就站到了站上去了阮吉就站不上去为什么呢吉康也知道是凶险啊对吧他是真的是撞上去然后怎么样死了拉倒就这样的一种人但阮吉呢就很聪明
(00:01:15):
但是有一条哦软极虽然很聪明软极虽然绝不自己直接撞篮墙但是软极还是坚持用自己特别隐晦的笔写出自己的良心至少写出自己的痛苦
(00:01:32):
面对黑暗能够表达痛苦是一种良知面对黑暗不敢表达痛苦是一种怯落面对黑暗不但不表达痛苦还要歌颂这个黑暗说自己很快乐这叫下流那阮吉呢阮吉至少在第一个层次上面对黑暗他绝不说我快乐我就痛苦他只不过不直接说所以阮吉用一种非常隐晦的笔墨
(00:01:58):
所以我以前讲软机我说软机的这种写法不是一种艺术的选择而是一种政治的选择所以软机自有它的深度机康有它的高度软机有它的深度这都是坚持良心的人
