事业 · 创业者自述
爱德华·博克：爱德华·博克自传·补录 581
爱德华·博克《爱德华·博克自传》· The Americanization of Edward Bok · 领导
The analysis had been furnished by the secretary of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts; a recognized expert, who had taken it from the analysis of a famous German chemist. It was in nearly every standard medical authority, and was accepted by the best medical authorities. Bok accepted these authorities as final. Nevertheless, the analysis and the experts were wrong. A suit for two hundred thousand dollars was brought by the patent-medicine company against The Curtis Publishing Company, and, of course, it was decided in favor of the former. But so strong a public sentiment had been created against the whole business of patent medicines by this time that the jury gave a verdict of only sixteen thousand dollars, with costs, against the magazine.
出处：
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3538
定位：Additional excerpt 581 · 核对日期：2026-10-19 · 核验：短摘录
白话
博克引用的成分分析来自马萨诸塞州卫生局秘书，一位公认的专家，数据又取自著名德国化学家的分析，几乎每本标准医学权威著作都收录，医学界也认可。博克以为这些权威是最终定论，结果分析和方法却出了错。药品公司起诉柯蒂斯出版公司索赔二十万美元，官司当然输了。但由于公众对假药业已极度反感，陪审团只判杂志赔一万六千美元加诉讼费。这说明：即使出于公心、依据权威，也可能出错；做调查报道要留有余地，核实再核实，同时公众舆论的支持能在法律失利时减轻代价。
上下文
博克因引用有误的分析被专利药品公司起诉，但公众情绪使赔偿金额远低于索赔。
今日一问
当你依据权威信息做出判断时，是否想过权威也可能出错？你如何为自己留出纠错空间？
公版传记；原文逐字取自 Project Gutenberg，仅摘录段落并附全书链接。
你的邮箱
只用于发送原典。不发广告，不卖名单。
本文本为公版；底本与原文链接见上。 版权