康有為受廖平經學二變「影響」、「抄襲」或「獨創」之爭，為學術史著名公案。而論此公案的所有學者，往往將《新學偽經考》與《孔制改制考》並談。一是說康有為《新學偽經考》祖述廖平《闢劉篇》、《孔子改制考》祖述《知聖篇》，都認為二書受廖啟發；再不然就是說康有為有自己的思考脈絡，兩書雖與廖暗合，但未必是受廖平影響。本文認為康有為《新學偽經考》並未抄襲廖平，因為他根本沒見過《闢劉篇》，康廖之合，只能說是學術史上的巧合。但康在1897 年出版《孔子改制考》，受廖平影響則顯然可證，此時康有為觀點已明顯與羊城之會時不同，這種不同也正是康廖二人會面時的主要爭論，羊城之會後，康有為論說便漸漸傾向於廖平的觀點。

The debate of whether KangYouwei (康有為) "plagiarized" or "influenced" by LiaoPing(廖平)'s JingXueErBian(經學二變)or he originally is a continual contention in Chinese intellectual history academia. Some Scholars argue that Kang "plagiarized" in this contention often juxtapose "XinXueWeiJingKao"（《新學偽經考》) and "KongZiGaiZhiKao" (《孔子改制考》)and discussed them together. Another Scholars who expound that Kang succeed to Liao's thought that "XinXueWeiJingKao" originated from "PiLiuPian" (《闢劉篇》)、"KongZiGaiZhiKao" originated from "ZhiShengPian" (《知聖篇》), both them were inspired by Liao; or others thought that Kang had his own development of ideas and even the two books accidentally corresponded to Liao, they were not inevitably influenced by Liao. This article suggest that KangYouwei's "XinXueWeiJingKao" didn't plagiarized LiaoPing, because he had not read "PiLiuPian", the correspondence between Kang and Liao is just the coincidence in the history of academia. But "KongZiGaiZhiKao" which Kang published in 1897 could be justified that it was influenced by Liao, because KangYouwei's main ideas in "KongZiGaiZhiKao" had become obviously different after the meeting in YangCheng, and this very difference was what they argued at the meeting, after that Kang inclined to agree with Liao.