Does science mean something different in China?

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Geographer said:

Does science mean something different in China? Because every military news blast originating in China seems to invoke science. "Scientific escort"? What the heck is that? How many peer-reviewed articles are published based on that research? How many PhDs are on-board these ships? They are conducted training and research, not science. Science is the progress of discovering new knowledge of the natural or human world. New knowledge means new to the world, not just new to China. I'm pretty sure everything China is discovering it the anti-piracy missions about sea-keeping, maritime logistics, and so on is well known to the ancient navies of Britain, France, and the United States.

It seems to me that China is trying to cloak its military under the banner of "science." It's like saying, "This isn't a gun, it's a research tool! And I'm not going to shoot you, I'm going to conduct scientific research!" (Which is little comfort because "scientific research" was the justification for Japan's Unit 731 in China and Dr. Mengele in Germany). Call a spade a spade: it's not science, it's naval warfare. To call it science is an insult to real scientists.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I feel that your interpretation of 'science' is dogmatic.

The scientific method is essentially an organized effort in trial and error. First you make an observation of a phenomenon or a problem, then you come up with a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon or solution to address the problem, and finally you perform experiments to determine if your explanation or solution is valid and if not modify your explanation or solution.

As long as one follows the scientific method, performs experiments with appropriate rigour, and use sound reasoning, studying how to prevent vegetables from rotting on long naval excursions is a perfectly valid scientific exercise.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Geographer said:

Does science mean something different in China? Because every military news blast originating in China seems to invoke science. "Scientific escort"? What the heck is that? How many peer-reviewed articles are published based on that research? How many PhDs are on-board these ships? They are conducted training and research, not science. Science is the progress of discovering new knowledge of the natural or human world. New knowledge means new to the world, not just new to China. I'm pretty sure everything China is discovering it the anti-piracy missions about sea-keeping, maritime logistics, and so on is well known to the ancient navies of Britain, France, and the United States.

It seems to me that China is trying to cloak its military under the banner of "science." It's like saying, "This isn't a gun, it's a research tool! And I'm not going to shoot you, I'm going to conduct scientific research!" (Which is little comfort because "scientific research" was the justification for Japan's Unit 731 in China and Dr. Mengele in Germany). Call a spade a spade: it's not science, it's naval warfare. To call it science is an insult to real scientists.

Click to expand...

PikeCowboy said:

I disagree, I feel that your interpretation of 'science' is dogmatic.

The scientific method is essentially an organized effort in trial and error. First you make an observation of a phenomenon or a problem, then you come up with a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon or solution to address the problem, and finally you perform experiments to determine if your explanation or solution is valid and if not modify your explanation or solution.

As long as one follows the scientific method, performs experiments with appropriate rigour, and use sound reasoning, studying how to prevent vegetables from rotting on long naval excursions is a perfectly valid scientific exercise.

Click to expand...

I agree with PikeCowboy. Science is simply a method. It does not have to be related to any specific field. It involves 5 main steps: data collection, proposing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis with experiments, formulation of theories, attempt to interpret phenomena with the theory. As long as it is done properly, i.e. with well-thought-out controls, it is good science. And science does not have to be new discoveries. In fact, majority of what is done in science is revision and modification of old theories. For instance, Einstein studied gravity, which was studied extensive by Newton and others centuries before him. So he's not making new discoveries, but giving new interpretations to a phenomenon that has been observed long time ago.

In fact, making new discoveries is only the most primitive and initial step in science. Making new discoveries is equivalent to data acquisition. Initially, we know nothing about a certain phenomenon. So we need to "make new discoveries". Like in biology/medicine, we constantly find new proteins/enzymes. That actually means we are still at a very early stage of biology. The real attempt to actually understand biology can only begin once we gather all the parts and have information on every protein/enzyme there is to discover.

IMO, science is like solving a puzzle. You can only begin an attempt to solve the puzzle once you have ALL the pieces in front of you. "Making new discoveries" is like gathering all the puzzle pieces. As you can imagine, that's the easy part, compared to what happens next.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

PikeCowboy and vesicles, you are both right in your descriptions of the scientific method, but I think you're missing the context. If learning new things through trial and error were science, then everyone everywhere would be conducting science. The word loses much of its meaning. Every navy tries new things on voyages, even the USN with centuries of experience. It's like saying the sailors were served...three meals a day! Duh! Yet only Chinese news reports constantly invoke "science".

I think there has been an explicit editorial decision to use that word as much as possible to play on the positive connotations of science. What Dr. Mengele did in the concentration camps could be considered science, but no one describes it as science because his experiments' cruelty don't deserve to be grouped with the work of good scientists. Similarly, historians describe the record of Japan's Unit 731 as war crimes, not science. Yet, according to a strict definition of scientific experimentation, what Unit 731 did probably qualifies as science.

Finally, there is a difference between science and engineering. A basic difference is that science discovers and engineering applies. Practical things like how to preserve vegetables better would fall under the heading of engineering improvements, not science.

So just because something follows a textbook definition of the scientific method doesn't mean 1) it ought to trumpeted as science, 2) it contributes anything to the world's understanding of nature.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Geographer said:

PikeCowboy and vesicles, you are both right in your assessment of the scientific method, but I think you're missing the context. If learning new things through trial and error were science, then everyone everywhere would be conducting science. The word loses much of its meaning. Every navy tries new things on voyages, even the USN with centuries of experience. It's like saying the sailors were served...three meals a day! Duh! Yet only Chinese news reports from constantly invoke "science".

I think there has been an explicit editorial decision to use that word as much as possible to play on the positive connotations of science. What Dr. Mengele did in the concentration camps could be considered science, but no one describes it as science because his experiments' cruelty don't deserve to be grouped by the work of good scientists. Similarly, historians describe the world of Japan's Unit 731 as war crimes, not science. Yet, according to a strict definition of scientific experimentation, what Unit 731 did probably qualifies.

Finally, there is a difference between science and engineering. A basic difference is that science discovers and engineering applies. Practical things like how to preserve vegetables better would fall under the heading of engineering improvements, not science.

So just because something follows a textbook definition of the scientific method doesn't mean 1) it ought to trumpeted as science, 2) it contributes anything to the world's understanding of nature.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. I agree with you that there is simply too much misuse of science in China's media. A lot of urban legends have been legitimized by labeling them "scientific". I am extremely frustrated by it. My-laws are into learning as many new things as possible. They do it by reading Chinese newspapers on-line. Many of the stuff they read fall into the category of urban legend/myth, but they believe it since it's printed and published in a newspaper. One time, my father-in-law found a piece that says lemon is a miracle drug against cancer and is 250000 times more effective. My immediately question was "against what"? it says 250000 times more effective, but what was it compared to? I went on-line and did a google-search and immediately found that this is simply a made-up information that was claimed to be published by a medical institute, which sternly denied that it ever published such information. yet, the Chinese newspaper made it sound like this is something confirmed in the international scientific community. Just last weekend, my father-in-law found another "valuable information" about cars releasing benzene while sitting in the sun. He immediately told us (my wife and I) that we should keep the window open for a while before turning on A/C. I found it weird and googled it again. It turned out to be a well-known urban legend. Many websites describe it and mention that there is no research on how much benzene would be found in a car sitting in hot sun and how it would compare to the amount of benzene found in the air or inside of a house. So there is simply no reason to worry about it. Yet, when I explained this to my father-in-law, he wouldn't listen to me. His argument was that we should believe it since it's a published piece. He then went on and "suggested" that I should be less cocky and listen to others more. My father-in law is an electrical engineer. If he believes all this crap, imagine how the general public perceives these misinformation. And Chinese news websites are filled with this kind of misinformation. And don't get me started on all the Chinese medicine crap...

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

vesicles said:

I see what you are saying. I agree with you that there is simply too much misuse of science in China's media. A lot of urban legends have been legitimized by labeling them "scientific". I am extremely frustrated by it. My-laws are into learning as many new things as possible. They do it by reading Chinese newspapers on-line. Many of the stuff they read fall into the category of urban legend/myth, but they believe it since it's printed and published in a newspaper. One time, my father-in-law found a piece that says lemon is a miracle drug against cancer and is 250000 times more effective. My immediately question was "against what"? it says 250000 times more effective, but what was it compared to? I went on-line and did a google-search and immediately found that this is simply a made-up information that was claimed to be published by a medical institute, which sternly denied that it ever published such information. yet, the Chinese newspaper made it sound like this is something confirmed in the international scientific community. Just last weekend, my father-in-law found another "valuable information" about cars releasing benzene while sitting in the sun. He immediately told us (my wife and I) that we should keep the window open for a while before turning on A/C. I found it weird and googled it again. It turned out to be a well-known urban legend. Many websites describe it and mention that there is no research on how much benzene would be found in a car sitting in hot sun and how it would compare to the amount of benzene found in the air or inside of a house. So there is simply no reason to worry about it. Yet, when I explained this to my father-in-law, he wouldn't listen to me. His argument was that we should believe it since it's a published piece. He then went on and "suggested" that I should be less cocky and listen to others more. My father-in law is an electrical engineer. If he believes all this crap, imagine how the general public perceives these misinformation. And Chinese news websites are filled with this kind of misinformation. And don't get me started on all the Chinese medicine crap...

Click to expand...

How do you deal with such "knowledge"? A wise old woman explained me, don't disagree, agree and discuss the knowledge in order to work out an application. That leads to a good feeling of the "knowledgeable" nitwit, while at the same time you can direct him to do put things into a whole system of sensible action without any word of denial.

You fully agree first (是的 ［是的］ Shìde), afterwards you exagerate the topic into absurd dimensions (加以 ［加以］ jiāyǐ) with the nitwit following you through with logic and "knowledge". It's important to be perfectly understanding and "having read somewhere about more issues concerning this topic". The conclusions about action you "both" figure out from the "analyses of the additional benefits/risks pertaining to this information" would make nice youtube videos. The goal is to cause the maximum inconvenience for the habits of the person that is to be convinced of not doing anything about it.
It's similar to the old .

The lemon, it helps against cancer, really. You have a body that constantly fights much more cancer than you know. Cancer cells are cells with DNA damage that leads to unstopped growth. Under such malfunction the cells within an organism are programmed to commit suicide and or show kill-me markers for the immune system and the immune system likes lemons among other things. But even these safety measures are sometimes not enough, requiring much more invasive treatment.

In the benzene case, you agree with him, say thanks a lot and start a discussion upon what else emits some quantity of benzene like shoes, mobile phones, and so on. In the end you created a complicated world full of benzene that still makes perfect sense (because the nitwit has no idea about quantity and concentration and you can always claim to have read it somewhere), but who will forever go without shoes and mobile phone?

I hope you'll very much enjoy yourself next time your father in law made a "discovery". If you follow the above advice he'll from now on hold you in high esteem because you are such an understanding and knowledgeable man who even politely listens to the wisdom of the elder. And please, take some photos or a video for future generations.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Kurt said:

How do you deal with such "knowledge"? A wise old woman explained me, don't disagree, agree and discuss the knowledge in order to work out an application. That leads to a good feeling of the "knowledgeable" nitwit, while at the same time you can direct him to do put things into a whole system of sensible action without any word of denial.

You fully agree first (是的 ［是的］ Shìde), afterwards you exagerate the topic into absurd dimensions (加以 ［加以］ jiāyǐ) with the nitwit following you through with logic and "knowledge". It's important to be perfectly understanding and "having read somewhere about more issues concerning this topic". The conclusions about action you "both" figure out from the "analyses of the additional benefits/risks pertaining to this information" would make nice youtube videos. The goal is to cause the maximum inconvenience for the habits of the person that is to be convinced of not doing anything about it.
It's similar to the old

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The lemon, it helps against cancer, really. You have a body that constantly fights much more cancer than you know. Cancer cells are cells with DNA damage that leads to unstopped growth. Under such malfunction the cells within an organism are programmed to commit suicide and or show kill-me markers for the immune system and the immune system likes lemons among other things. But even these safety measures are sometimes not enough, requiring much more invasive treatment.

In the benzene case, you agree with him, say thanks a lot and start a discussion upon what else emits some quantity of benzene like shoes, mobile phones, and so on. In the end you created a complicated world full of benzene that still makes perfect sense (because the nitwit has no idea about quantity and concentration and you can always claim to have read it somewhere), but who will forever go without shoes and mobile phone?

I hope you'll very much enjoy yourself next time your father in law made a "discovery". If you follow the above advice he'll from now on hold you in high esteem because you are such an understanding and knowledgeable man who even politely listens to the wisdom of the elder. And please, take some photos or a video for future generations.

Click to expand...

thanks for the advice! I guess I did sound a bit cocky...

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

Talking about science in China. I just had the opportunity to review a manuscript submitted by a group at Qinghua University, Beijing, China. Since this group is at Qinghua, it's supposed to be the best. However, it looks more like a lab report in a college biology class. Control was not performed properly. Statistical analysis was also done poorly. Microscopic images were poorly obtained. Yet, with the limited results they got, they were unnaturally ambitious, literally claiming what they found could change the world. I honestly don't know what to say. I wrote to the editor of the journal to recommend rejection of the manuscript.

When I talked with a Chinese professor, who interacts regularly with scholars in China, about this, he pointed out that this is actually the norm. Majority of the labs in China focus so much on getting grants and don't care too much about how the funding is used. Since the whole Chinese society now is focused on making money, the scholars also put their priority on money-making and have little patience for the hard-core basic science. Because of this, many of them choose the easy way of making up fake data and plagiarizing. And for the few who do not want to do the wrong thing, they normally do a few experiments, which only scratch the surface, and don't want to dig any deeper. digging deeper would mean lowering your head and spending months, years and even decades in the lab without anyone noticing you, without any significant money and fame. The modern Chinese society simply has little patience for that.

I tend to agree with this assessment. We also get many new graduate students and post-docs from China. I can't remember how many time I have been asked how much money they can potentially make if they choose a certain lab and a certain field. Although there is nothing wrong with going to the industry and making loads of money after getting Ph.D., it seems way too many of them put way too much focus on the money-making part of the equation. there are also many who plan to get a Ph.D., no matter what field it is. Once getting a Ph.D., they would go back to China and find a job at a multi-national corporation, which, most of the time, has nothing to do with the field of their degree. They simply view a Ph.D. degree as a way to elevate their credential so that they can get a nice job in China. I can't remember when was the last time I met a Chinese student/post-doc who views science as science and wants to dedicate themselves to the craft.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Here's an old but interesting article about Chinese and Greek views of philosophy and science:

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

vesicles said:

thanks for the advice! I guess I did sound a bit cocky...

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

Talking about science in China. I just had the opportunity to review a manuscript submitted by a group at Qinghua University, Beijing, China. Since this group is at Qinghua, it's supposed to be the best. However, it looks more like a lab report in a college biology class. Control was not performed properly. Statistical analysis was also done poorly. Microscopic images were poorly obtained. Yet, with the limited results they got, they were unnaturally ambitious, literally claiming what they found could change the world. I honestly don't know what to say. I wrote to the editor of the journal to recommend rejection of the manuscript.

When I talked with a Chinese professor, who interacts regularly with scholars in China, about this, he pointed out that this is actually the norm. Majority of the labs in China focus so much on getting grants and don't care too much about how the funding is used. Since the whole Chinese society now is focused on making money, the scholars also put their priority on money-making and have little patience for the hard-core basic science. Because of this, many of them choose the easy way of making up fake data and plagiarizing. And for the few who do not want to do the wrong thing, they normally do a few experiments, which only scratch the surface, and don't want to dig any deeper. digging deeper would mean lowering your head and spending months, years and even decades in the lab without anyone noticing you, without any significant money and fame. The modern Chinese society simply has little patience for that.

I tend to agree with this assessment. We also get many new graduate students and post-docs from China. I can't remember how many time I have been asked how much money they can potentially make if they choose a certain lab and a certain field. Although there is nothing wrong with going to the industry and making loads of money after getting Ph.D., it seems way too many of them put way too much focus on the money-making part of the equation. there are also many who plan to get a Ph.D., no matter what field it is. Once getting a Ph.D., they would go back to China and find a job at a multi-national corporation, which, most of the time, has nothing to do with the field of their degree. They simply view a Ph.D. degree as a way to elevate their credential so that they can get a nice job in China. I can't remember when was the last time I met a Chinese student/post-doc who views science as science and wants to dedicate themselves to the craft.

Click to expand...

China's biomedical sciences are very bad in general. Qinghua is noted for physical sciences and engineering, not so much for biology.

I think the standards for biology and physical sciences/engineering are quite different in all ways: the way articles are written, results presented, types of students attracted, even time to graduation. For example, a physics article like this would simply not be good enough for a biosciences journal, which is expected to have alot of citations, statistical analysis, a clear control... physics papers (outside of astro and particle) nowadays are much more straightforward, as you can see. Physics, at least applied physics, cares more about whether the device designed is operational and followup questions like if yes, can it be optimized and if no, what are the failure modes. Since there aren't that many experiments run, and there's more modeling done, you don't need statistics.

Even from physics, biophysics has alot more rigorous statistical analysis...



than condensed matter physics, which is more about 'order of magnitude' 'fits the theory OK' and 'device is operational'.



In fact, I haven't seen many papers outside of finance, sociology, biology, astro and particle that use hardcore statistical analysis. In most Physics, Chemistry and Materials papers, there's just a few experiments, a few micrographs, a short description of device design, maybe some modeling.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

That's interesting, I had the chance to work at a Chinese chemistry lab in Europe and was appalled at the insecurity standard, it felt like exploding any time and no, they didn't work on anything dangerous, explosive or toxic.
On the other hand, the laboratory leader gave me a lengthy introduction on Chinese thinking that you need a very long education to become someone with special capabilities to create things.
The summary of the other chemists at the university was: "We have no idea what they're doing, but we expect them to blow themselves up anytime soon. They are a pet project of this professor."
My conclusion was that China has a great history, but the current leap in new scientific research has little connection to the old scientific roots and they hardly care about anything but positive results, including simple personal safety measures. That's a problem in science because negative results are also results and such a focus ultimately leads to fakes.

Re: PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Kurt said:

That's interesting, I had the chance to work at a Chinese chemistry lab in Europe and was appalled at the insecurity standard, it felt like exploding any time and no, they didn't work on anything dangerous, explosive or toxic.
On the other hand, the laboratory leader gave me a lengthy introduction on Chinese thinking that you need a very long education to become someone with special capabilities to create things.
The summary of the other chemists at the university was: "We have no idea what they're doing, but we expect them to blow themselves up anytime soon. They are a pet project of this professor."
My conclusion was that China has a great history, but the current leap in new scientific research has little connection to the old scientific roots and they hardly care about anything but positive results, including simple personal safety measures. That's a problem in science because negative results are also results and such a focus ultimately leads to fakes.

Click to expand...

Organic or physical lab? I've seen pretty lax safety standards, of course, but nothing fatal.

I see the same focus on positive results in US labs all the time, especially particle and astro. And lets not forget, in my field, materials science, the biggest fraud of all time was by a German.