How honest and objective are these measurements? Is it even possible

File: 1482693796709.png (40KB, 855x524px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 855x524px

>>2182624

File: 1482693979845.png (36KB, 855x524px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 855x524px

>>2182626

File: 1482693639460.jpg (1MB, 2792x2120px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2792x2120px

>>2182627

File: 1482697521722.png (108KB, 1237x1017px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1237x1017px

>>2182630

>>2182624
Note that a good three quarters of the 'United States" great scientists were born, raised and educated in other countries and were only financially funded by America, f

>>2182624
Has more to do with cross-cultural influence than contribution.
Of course the us is ahead, they own everything

File: image.jpg (4KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 150x150px

>>2182624
More about cross-cultural influence than actual contribution, of course America is in the lead, America "owns" most of the world by legal or defacto economic means.
And the other large ones were colonial superpowers.
The very idea that any of those nations have done anything comparable to what China or India have done to influence the world in their 10,000 year histories, shows how ridiculous noiterity is as a measurement of influence. You're average human has no idea about 99% of the powers that be.

US UK and France has been exporting their culture since the dawn of mass media, so of course their individuals are more "globally known".
Not to mention what is even the criteria for being "globally known"? Is it a survey or is it decided by a panel?

>>2182624
Well, most of the scientists in the US are British, same for the other colonies.

>>2182624
It's accurate. Even if you just look at inventions to bypass subjectivity the vast majority of them have come from the US and Europe.