Does science mean something different in China?

Originally Posted by no_name

And actually I think western societies follows rules and regulations more strictly and inflexible.

I think it depends on what kind of rules you are talking about. If it is something like making up data or plagiarizing, yes, the Western scientists follow rules strictly. The Chinese seem to have little regard for these rules and cut corners whenever they can. For instance, most Chinese colleagues that I've met consider the Metro Rail in Houston as free ride. In fact, you have to pay $1.25 for 2 hours on the train. Yet, it does not have any active monitoring system, but only self-pay stations at the stops. So most of them don't even bother paying anything. When I told my in-law about this, his first response was "if they are not watching, why should I pay?" That seems to the common feeling for many Chinese: disregard of rules and regulations. That's why there are so many fake stuff in China. However, when it comes to innovation and creativity, they seem to shy away from it...

Originally Posted by vesicles

I think it depends on what kind of rules you are talking about. If it is something like making up data or plagiarizing, yes, the Western scientists follow rules strictly. The Chinese seem to have little regard for these rules and cut corners whenever they can. For instance, most Chinese colleagues that I've met consider the Metro Rail in Houston as free ride. In fact, you have to pay $1.25 for 2 hours on the train. Yet, it does not have any active monitoring system, but only self-pay stations at the stops. So most of them don't even bother paying anything. When I told my in-law about this, his first response was "if they are not watching, why should I pay?" That seems to the common feeling for many Chinese: disregard of rules and regulations. That's why there are so many fake stuff in China. However, when it comes to innovation and creativity, they seem to shy away from it...

I remember we had this huge debate about innovation and creativity. I think we need to define what exactly those 2 terms mean, or we're just going to fall into soundbites.

For example, I've seen instant meals sold on trains in China where they make use of those heating pads that heat up when you bend them. If that's not innovation, I don't know what is.

Those are sodium acetate pads.

Originally Posted by solarz

I remember we had this huge debate about innovation and creativity. I think we need to define what exactly those 2 terms mean, or we're just going to fall into soundbites.

For example, I've seen instant meals sold on trains in China where they make use of those heating pads that heat up when you bend them. If that's not innovation, I don't know what is.

Those are sodium acetate pads.

Those heating pads have been around for a lonnnnnggggg time. We use it in the lab to keep animals warm during surgery. It's not invented in China. The one with the metal disc in the middle, the latest reusable version, was invented in 1978 in the US (US Patent 4,077,390 (1978)). Check out the chemical heating pad section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_pad#Chemical

Originally Posted by vesicles

Those heating pads have been around for a lonnnnnggggg time. We use it in the lab to keep animals warm during surgery. It's not invented in China. The one with the metal disc in the middle, the latest reusable version, was invented in 1978 in the US (US Patent 4,077,390 (1978)). Check out the chemical heating pad section:

Heating pad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying the Chinese invented the heating pad, I'm saying the way they use it is very innovative.

Originally Posted by solarz

I'm not saying the Chinese invented the heating pad, I'm saying the way they use it is very innovative.

I honestly don't think it should be considered innovative. People come up with new ways of using existing technology all the time. It shouldn't be considered innovative. I put aluminum foil on my antenna to extend its range, should I be considered innovative? As a matter of fact, I think putting aluminum foil on antenna is more innovative than using heat pad to heat up food. Why? When aluminum foil was invented, it was never intended to be used to detect electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, those heating pads were invented to heat stuff up. So using these heating pads to heat up food is exactly what it was invented for. Innovation should be something that is not existent before and is revolutionary. A shaking ball for making ice cream is innovative. Using the shaking ball to make frozen yogurt, instead of ice cream, is not innovative.

Originally Posted by vesicles

I honestly don't think it should be considered innovative. People come up with new ways of using existing technology all the time. It shouldn't be considered innovative. I put aluminum foil on my antenna to extend its range, should I be considered innovative? As a matter of fact, I think putting aluminum foil on antenna is more innovative than using heat pad to heat up food. Why? When aluminum foil was invented, it was never intended to be used to detect electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, those heating pads were invented to heat stuff up. So using these heating pads to heat up food is exactly what it was invented for. Innovation should be something that is not existent before and is revolutionary. A shaking ball for making ice cream is innovative. Using the shaking ball to make frozen yogurt, instead of ice cream, is not innovative.

And that's exactly why we'd get nowhere with this debate, because you and I have different ideas of what "innovation" means.

Take Apple, the poster child for Western innovation. Is it really innovative, or is it simply responding to market demands?

Then you look at Chinese electronics companies that make cheaper knock-offs. A knee-jerk reaction would be to dismiss them as unoriginal and not innovative. However, if we think about it, the question really should be: why *wouldn't* Chinese companies make knock-off products?

Original product design takes a lot of resources. Apple is rewarded for that investment by being the leader in its industry. However, in China, Apple products are luxury items, much like LV bags: only the rich can afford them.

This leaves a market of hundreds of millions. A company that caters to this market doesn't need to invest in R&D, all it has to do is copy a few interesting features and price its products much cheaper than Apple.

Why doesn't that happen in North America? It's not just because of stricter patent laws. In a way, the current tablet market is much like the cell phone market in China. The iPad 2 is the leader, and there is a plethora of much cheaper tablets, from Blackberry to ASUS to Kindle to the defunct HP (which once went on sale for 99$).

So why are those cheaper tablets struggling for a market share in North America, while the cheap iPhone knock-off are selling like hotcakes in China? It all comes back to the market. The iPhone 4S sells for 5000 RMB. To many families, that's 2-3 months worth of income. To my in-laws, for example, a comfortably middle-class small town family, this is an entire month's salary. A knock off might cost 1000 RMB, by comparison.

On the other hand, an iPad 2 sells here for 700$, which is only 20-30% of the monthly income of a middle class family. People are much more likely to pay more for a better product *when they can afford it*. If we multiplied the price of all tablets by 4, I bet people would be much more willing to buy 1000$ Kindles than 3000$ iPads!

So in the end, the whole argument is not about innovation. It's about the market.

Originally Posted by vesicles

I think it depends on what kind of rules you are talking about. If it is something like making up data or plagiarizing, yes, the Western scientists follow rules strictly. The Chinese seem to have little regard for these rules and cut corners whenever they can. For instance, most Chinese colleagues that I've met consider the Metro Rail in Houston as free ride. In fact, you have to pay $1.25 for 2 hours on the train. Yet, it does not have any active monitoring system, but only self-pay stations at the stops. So most of them don't even bother paying anything. When I told my in-law about this, his first response was "if they are not watching, why should I pay?" That seems to the common feeling for many Chinese: disregard of rules and regulations. That's why there are so many fake stuff in China. However, when it comes to innovation and creativity, they seem to shy away from it...

Well, abiding by the law is always a good thing, and I want China follow on those trends.
In inflexibility I mentioned is a bit like the sort of inflexibility you get when you go through customs. Also the division of work and responsibilities is very clear cut, like someone is not going to help you out with something when it is just a matter of convenience, because it is not part of his work. Stuff like not going to stay behind to help out the last couple of customers when the shop closes at 5, even if it just takes half more minute.

Not advocating it being right but the US stole from Europe left and right in the 19th century which built its economy. Laws and rules are designed to protect those that wrote them. Like I've mention before, the US and the EU are planning to declare the C919 is built on subsidies. It's not competive with their airliners and it's not going to steal their market share... except in China. That's what it's all about. They don't want Chinese building their own plane that they will buy thus will not buy Boeing or Airbus. So under the "rules" they can violate the sovereign rights of another country. Just like rare earths. Nothing is preventing anyone else from producing them. They just want the cheap China price at the expense of Chinese slave labor and health risks associated with producing them avoiding the costs to their own countries. If their rules were fair, could China file a WTO complaint forcing the US to sell and at a cheap cost it's most advanced technology to China?

solarz, you make a good point about Chinese companies making products for a different market. But the question remains: why can't Chinese companies develop products for the highest end market? Why are all luxury goods made by non-Chinese companies?

Here's another, albiet older, example of bizarre "science" in China. AFP

Xue Yinxian, the former chief doctor for the Chinese gymnastics team in the 1980s, said steroids and human growth hormones were officially treated as part of "scientific training" as the country emerged as a sporting power.

Chinese athletics doctors clearly were not aware of the latest scientific research into the harmful effects of steroids. They just saw the technology, not the knowledge and context behind it.

Originally Posted by Geographer

solarz, you make a good point about Chinese companies making products for a different market. But the question remains: why can't Chinese companies develop products for the highest end market? Why are all luxury goods made by non-Chinese companies?

That's a good question, and the answer is: the rich Chinese people don't want to buy Chinese products.

This mentality comes from decades of China being technologically behind the Western nations, and is not easily addressed.

Things are slowly changing, however.

I just read this thread from bladerunner's post #36 and I found especially that post and the first posts following very interesting. I think teaching in all countries can be greatly improved.
First an anecdote. The woman who introduced me to my future wife had a minimal education although she was manifestly very bright. Well, she had earlier told my wife that she couldn't do arithmetic, actually she could do anything but division. She had been told that division is determining how many times more a certain quantity goes into a larger quantity. She understood so that if you divide 16 by 4 you get 3, because you already have that first 4. She was very obedient so she got all divisions wrong and none for her teachers, more than half a dozen until she left school at fifteen, was bright enough to recognize her trouble. My wife said if their positions had been reversed she might have been bundling roses and Esther might have been going to University. Since then the Dutch government has saved a lot of money on training teachers.
This set off my wife in developing a computer program to teach children arithmetic. It should be possible for bright children to learn primary school arithmetic in a few weeks, and let them go on to secondary school maths if the want to. For the less bright ones a few months should be enough. Computers have endless patience, can be programmed to recognize mistakes and point them out. Then school time can be spent on other things like, perhaps, philosophy? What about athletics, or making things?
It should be possible to have all subjects taught by computer except such things as practical experience with chemistry and physics, going outside to look at plants and animals &c.

Originally Posted by delft

This set off my wife in developing a computer program to teach children arithmetic. It should be possible for bright children to learn primary school arithmetic in a few weeks, and let them go on to secondary school maths if the want to. For the less bright ones a few months should be enough. Computers have endless patience, can be programmed to recognize mistakes and point them out. Then school time can be spent on other things like, perhaps, philosophy? What about athletics, or making things?
It should be possible to have all subjects taught by computer except such things as practical experience with chemistry and physics, going outside to look at plants and animals &c.

Arithmetics? Just introduce the kids to Dungeons and Dragons, and they'll be on top of their arithmetics in no time.