三百年來的《古文尚書》公案為後人留下了經義、經學史、文本校勘學、文字音韻訓詁學乃至政治、歷史領域內諸多有待重新論證或深入探討的枝節性問題，若抽象之，可歸納為觀照學術的認識論和研究問題的方法論。梅頤所獻《古文尚書》二十五篇非馬、鄭所傳此眾所共知，然其為何人所傳、所造則人各一說，紛紜無定。史載王肅好與鄭玄立異，清儒崇鄭而黜王，故王肅偽造《家語》、《孔叢子》成為一種集體意識。惠棟、錢大昕、戴震、王鳴盛、劉端臨、李惇等基於此種意識而懷疑王肅偽造《古文尚書》及《傳》，逮及丁晏，蒐輯、羅列所謂證據，將懷疑證成為事實。一時群相信從，視為確論，其傳播之廣，影響之深，幾若閻若璩定《古文尚書》之案。至陳澧、劉師培稍持異義，吳承仕始發其覆，學者恍若初醒，乃知丁氏所據未經證實，所思不免單向，所證亦多悖論，所論不無偏頗。以今之眼光，重新審視王肅偽造《古文尚書》經傳案例——從懷疑、肯定到否定之全過程，不僅可以清晰認識清代學術史「實事求是」旗幟下另一面所呈現出來的認識論和方法論之缺陷，更可省悟一種觀點形成風行後人類思維吠影吠聲之慣性和歷史之侷限性。由此可以反思，整個《古文尚書》公案中尚有不少枝節性案例值得重新審視，而匯總到《尚書》公案本身，亦有不少認識論和方法論值得推敲和修正。推而廣之到整個學術研究，仍可引起學者全方位的永久性的思考。

The debate of the Guwen Shangshu which has continued over the past 300 years, still involves many unsolved problems, such as the meanings of the Confucian classics, classical learning, and critical interpretation, etc., even including historical and political research. These questions concern epistemology and methodology. According to the general conclusion, the commentary to the 25 chapters contributed by Mei Yi were not written by Ma Rong and Zheng Xuan. Zheng Xuan’s admirers in the Qing dynasty, such as Hui Dong, Qian Daxin, Dai Zhen, Wang Mingsheng, Liu Duanlin and Li Dun confirmed that Wang Su forged Jia yu and Kong congzi. Ding Yan (1794-1875), in particular, collected many materials and proved this conclusion in his work Shangshu yulun. Only a few scholars like Chen Li or Liu Shipei challenged Ding’s opinion, until Wu Chengshi (1884-1939) took the contrary position. Rethinking the case, from suspicion to confirmation to negation, we can see some aspects of the learning process in Qing dynasty and modern times.