China — Not The US — Is Now The Global Leader In Science & Tech

[beijingwalker]

Vietnam and Malaysia lead France and Netherland in term of Scientific and Technology development??

Again, because the graph said so if it is being interpreted your way.

In that important factor, yes, in overall metrics, no.

 

[jhungary]

In that important factor, yes, in overall metrics, no.

So, yes or no?

It's really simple. Again, I am not asking you what is important and what is not.

I am asking you whether Vietnam and Malaysia are more high tech than France and Netherland.

 

[beijingwalker]

So, yes or no?

It's really simple. Again, I am not asking you what is important and what is not.

I am asking you whether Vietnam and Malaysia are more high tech than France and Netherland.

No, because you are talking about in general , not in high tech export itself. Vietnam doesn't produce more cited science and research papers , patents ....than France. High tech exports is just one factor , not all.

 

[jhungary]

No, because you are talking about in general , not in high tech export itself. Vietnam doesn't produce more cited science and research papers , patents ....than France. High tech exports is just one factor , not all.

So the answer is no. Which mean that particular indication in this case is wrong?

Hence I can say the graph is wrong, as per your interpretation.

 

[beijingwalker]

So the answer is no.

Yes, it's just a factor, is an important though, in this thread people post many indicators, you have to put them all in consideration, not just one.

 

[jhungary]

Yes, it's just a factor, is an important though, in this thread people post many indicators, you have to put them all in consideration, not just one.

So how many factor do you think govern who is the leader of Science and Technology? I mean if you just lead by one, that does not mean it is the "leader" of science and technology? Do you agree?

 

[beijingwalker]

So how many factor do you think govern who is the leader of Science and Technology? I mean if you just lead by one, that does not mean it is the "leader" of science and technology? Do you agree?

Just leader of one should not be considered as an overall leader, you create something and you have to make it sell, otherwise all will be in vain. papers and researches should be cashed at some point as a reward, otherwise they won't be sustainable.

 

[jhungary]

Just leader of one should not be considered as an overall leader, you create something and you have to make it sell, otherwise all will be in vain. papers and researches should be cashed at some point as a reward, otherwise they won't be sustainable.

Then how do you determine China lead science and technology when you just use 2 parameters without knowing how many other parameters are there to gauge this topic? Let alone both weren't actually a direct indication as mentioned by me, you and some other member already?

I mean, how about invention type, how about actual application, how about money earn from application? How about patent right? How about every one of these parameters listed on this list??

Science & Technology Indicators — OVTT

Science, technology and innovation indicators are an international measure, analysis and comparison tool to support the comprehension and evolution of R&D

www.ovtt.org

 

[beijingwalker]

Then how do you determine China lead science and technology when you just use 2 parameters without knowing how many other parameters are there to gauge this topic? Let alone both weren't actually a direct indication as mentioned by me, you and some other member already?

I mean, how about invention type, how about actual application, how about money earn from application? How about patent right? How about every one of these parameters listed on this list??

Science & Technology Indicators — OVTT

Science, technology and innovation indicators are an international measure, analysis and comparison tool to support the comprehension and evolution of R&D

www.ovtt.org

It's an article posted up for discussion, as most posts in PDF, it's debatable. especially in comprehensive and selected scopes.

 

[jhungary]

It's an article posted up for discussion, as most posts in PDF, it's debatable. especially in comprehensive and selected scopes.

I don't know about you, but that's what I have been doing, hasn't I?

 

[beijingwalker]

I don't know about you, but that's what I have been doing, hasn't I?

That's also what I have been doing.

 

[OIO]

Copying is not creativity, is it? Please do not confuse the two.

Communism is USSR was just as indoctrinating as present day Chinese communism. And just as deadly for creativity.

What you have been accepting is the propaganda of the United States. In fact, the United States is not good at science. The United States is very good at engineering. After World War II, there has been no progress in science.

The engineering innovation of the United States is based on the scientific basis of Europe before World War II. In addition to the promotion of the market economy, the sufficient liquidity provided by the US dollar hegemony is also an important reason.

It has nothing to do with ideology, it has something to do with the education system, but the US education system is also in a mess. Coupled with de-industrialization, American technological innovation has no future.

I hope China will not follow the same mistakes of the United States. Political correctness and happy education are not acceptable, although the negative impact is not immediately reflected.

 

[VCheng]

In fact, the United States is not good at science. The United States is very good at engineering. After World War II, there has been no progress in science.

Please tell us what you think the difference between science and engineering is, so I can understand what distinction you are trying to make here.

The engineering innovation of the United States is based on the scientific basis of Europe before World War II.

Yeah, the Europeans gave us the Space Shuttle, modern computers and the very internet you are using to say this right now before WW2.

 

[OIO]

Please tell us what you think the difference between science and engineering is, so I can understand what distinction you are trying to make here.



Yeah, the Europeans gave us the Space Shuttle, modern computers and the very internet you are using to say this right now before WW2.

There is no absolute boundary between science and technology. Simply put, science is physics.

A lot of people don't understand my point of view, so I'm not surprised by your reaction.

Because this is different from their long-standing impression of how powerful the United States is, and it also stems from their misunderstanding of science and technology.

I think China is not doing well, but it does not mean that the United States is doing well. If the United States has new developments in basic science, they will not worry that China will threaten the United States at all.

 

[VCheng]

A lot of people don't understand my point of view, so I'm not surprised by your reaction.

I am trying to understand your point of view, so please try to explain better. After all, engineering is only one of the applied sciences, just like cryptography is applied mathematics.