Proposal to rename new "Most Scientifically Advanced" rating

[Riasy]

I believe that the name and description of the "Most Scientifically Advanced" rating right now doesn't match the actual mechanics of this rating. According to my observations this rating places much higher the nations with very high Industry ratings, so I think that it seriously downplays the importance of fundamental science and places the emphasis solely on the amount of technical innovations. I believe that such bias makes it unsuitable for measurement of the level of citizens’ competency in scientific matters or the level of actual scientific development of nations.

To solve the contradiction between the real nature of this rating and its name and description I propose to rename it into the "Most Technologically Innovative" and to change its description accordingly.

[Tyler Kazakov IV]

I agree.

[Andacantra]

Basically, I think my nation disproves your idea as to how this rating works.

My industries are /all/ through the floor, my economy is in a completely screwed up state and is essentially non-existent but yet, my Most Scientifically Advanced is sat well above the world average, although not in the world top 10% it's hardly low.

[Riasy]

Andacantra is not even in the World’s top 10%. I don’t think that your example actually defeats my argument. I’m not saying that this is the only thing that is taken into account, but this rating is strongly skewed in favor of nations with very high Industry ratings. Nations that are focusing on the development of technical appliances are really placed higher than nations that choose more academic approach to scientific progress. I don’t think that with such bias this rating can adequately measure the levels of scientific development in the World.

[Andacantra]

But in real life there's a skew in that direction, too. My point was that it's still possible to be ranked pretty high up in this ranking despite my industry being through the floor. It's not just bad, it's essentially non-existent...of course that will have an impact on scientific advancement, as you need theories to be developed into technology in order for further scientific advancement to take place, generally.

I don't think it's that heavily skewed. It's more of a General debate as to how much Science is/should be affected by industrial investment, and given it's blatantly not impossible to get a reasonably high score with absolutely non-existent industry, it can't be that bad. It's a personal opinion that industry has no impact on scientific advancement. It places /some/ emphasis on technological advancement. A renamed ranking of "Most Technologically Innovative" really wouldn't make much sense for me to be in the top 20% of the world (or so, can't be bothered to actual do the calculation) with no industry at all (heck, probably specifically hostile to industry.)

[Riasy]

I don’t think that negative Industry ratings mean that these industries are completely absent in your nation. It is relatively easy to build nation with Frightening Economy, but also with negative levels of all Industry ratings. I believe that this only can mean that many of these industries are still present in the nation, but that they all are extremely inefficient and unable to become competitive at the global market.

So your tolerable place in the list of "Most Technologically Innovative" will just mean that even with all innovations your economy and industries are still unable to become competitive. There is nothing unrealistic in such situation. Economic competitiveness isn't based only on technological innovations.


EDIT: And I believe that it should be fairly obvious that strong, competitive private sector is more vital for development of technological innovations than for advancement of pure science.

[Ponderosa]

I think somebody's just unhappy that a tanking economy does not lend itself to more scientific advancement. Surprise surprise.

citizens’ competency in scientific matters

The United States is a world leader in scientific development, even though a third of Americans reject the theory of evolution. Citizens competency is irrelevant to this statistic.

[Zwangzug]

The description:

World Census researchers quantified national scientific advancement by quizzing random citizens about quantum chromodynamics, space-time curvature and stem cell rejuvenation therapies. Responses based on Star Trek were discarded.

seems to indicate that it should be more correlated with population knowledge (as quantified through, what, education?) than it is currently. Comparing the positions of this account and one of my puppets also makes me feel like either the descriptions and/or the formulas should be rejiggered.

[Riasy]

I think somebody's just unhappy that a tanking economy does not lend itself to more scientific advancement. Surprise surprise.

No, my problem is that according to this rating the education is apparently much less important for scientific progress than the vitality of private sector. I believe that it isn't very good idea to use such debatable supposition as a basis for the ranking that should determine how much our nations are advanced in science.

[Ponderosa]

I think somebody's just unhappy that a tanking economy does not lend itself to more scientific advancement. Surprise surprise.

No, my problem is that according to this rating the education is apparently much less important for scientific progress than the vitality of private sector. I believe that it isn't very good idea to use such debatable supposition as a basis for the ranking that should determine how much our nations are advanced in science.

Good education is a necessary condition for scientific advancement, not a sufficient one. A healthy economy is an indicator of scientific development. If you have a basket case economy, your scientific advancement isn't advancing very far. Otherwise you wouldn't have a third world country.

[Riasy]

No, my problem is that according to this rating the education is apparently much less important for scientific progress than the vitality of private sector. I believe that it isn't very good idea to use such debatable supposition as a basis for the ranking that should determine how much our nations are advanced in science.

Good education is a necessary condition for scientific advancement, not a sufficient one. A healthy economy is an indicator of scientific development. If you have a basket case economy, your scientific advancement isn't advancing very far. Otherwise you wouldn't have a third world country.

Many of the top ten nations aren't actually focusing their efforts on Education, and ABU AMMAR spends absolutely nothing on it! And its Intelligence rating is also low.

Plus the economic power and the vitality of private sector are different things.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would suggest "Most Innovative" if that is alright.

[Bears Armed]

Meh. It assumes that every nation is at the same Tech Level, anyway...