将视频脚本翻译成英文，然后用英文评论
解题与创新
颠覆性创新本来就是稀缺的，
但是在现代出版界(除了数学学科而外)，绝大部分颠覆主流理论的稿件都被以是错误的为理由，压制少数派的观点。
现代科学出版界，发表的最优秀的工作也只不过是解题，
越是创新，越容易被压制。
ChatGPT：
Commentary: Problem-Solving vs. Innovation
The distinction drawn in this passage is fundamental:
Solving problems is not the same as creating knowledge.
Throughout the history of science and mathematics, the highest level of achievement has not been the ability to solve predefined questions, but the ability to redefine the questions themselves—to construct new frameworks, new methods, and new ways of thinking.
Yet modern scientific publishing has moved in the opposite direction.
Disruptive innovation is, by nature, rare. But instead of recognizing and carefully evaluating such work, the modern publication system—outside of a few fields like mathematics—often dismisses it preemptively. The justification is familiar:
“Most challenges to mainstream theory are wrong.”
This statement may be statistically true. But it is methodologically dangerous.
Because from this premise, a practice emerges:
Minority views are suppressed
Radical ideas are filtered out early
Only incremental, “safe” work survives
The result is a system where:
The best published work is often sophisticated problem-solving within existing frameworks—not genuine innovation.
This creates a paradox:
The more a work conforms, the more likely it is to be published
The more it challenges foundations, the more likely it is to be rejected
In other words:
The closer a work gets to real innovation, the higher the probability it will be suppressed.
This is not merely an academic issue—it is a structural constraint on scientific progress.
The historical figures mentioned—such as Shiing-Shen Chern—are remembered not because they solved isolated problems, but because they reshaped entire domains. If such work were subjected to today’s publication filters, one must ask:
Would it even be published?
Conclusion
Modern science risks confusing technical excellence with intellectual breakthrough.
Problem-solving is necessary—but it is not sufficient.
If a system systematically favors solving existing problems over questioning them, then:
It does not eliminate error—it eliminates the possibility of transformation.
And in such a system, innovation does not disappear because it is impossible—
it disappears because it is not allowed.
下面先给出视频脚本的英文翻译（整理为自然、准确的表达），然后是一篇有锋芒的英文评论，围绕“problem-solving vs. innovation（解题与创新）”展开。
English Translation of the Script
(00:00:02)
Professor Qiu, how would you evaluate Professor Chen Jingrun?
Each era is different. Chen Jingrun’s work is something we strongly encourage and deeply admire for its importance. However, evaluating a scholar depends on different perspectives.
(00:00:24)
My fundamental view is that the essence of scholarship lies in creating new fields of knowledge, not merely solving existing problems. Throughout history, truly great scholars have been those who contributed to the creation of new intellectual frameworks, rather than simply solving problems posed by others.
(00:00:48)
Chen Jingrun’s work is beautiful and important. His methods largely follow a lineage—from Hardy and Littlewood to Vinogradov—continuously developed over time. These methods were not originally created by him.
He had his own ideas and achieved a remarkable result, but he did not completely solve the Goldbach Conjecture. Therefore, one can say that Chen Jingrun’s work is significant, but it does not reach the level of scholars like Zhang Yitang, Shiing-Shen Chern, or Wei-Liang Chow. Experts in mathematics around the world would generally agree with this assessment.
(00:00:02):
邱教授请您评价一下陈景润教授。一个时代跟一个时代不一样。陈景润的工作，我们都很鼓励，同时很激励地欣赏他的重要的工作。但是评价一个学者每一个学者有不同的观点来评价
(00:00:24):
我评价整个学问的基础方法基本观点是是创造这个学问，而不是单是解题目。这个事成历代以来伟大的学者其实都是跟创造学问有关，而不单是解人家的问题
(00:00:48):
陈景润的工作很漂亮的工作，他主要的方法从哈迪 丽特沃
(00:00:54):
到了威尼华德，这个不停地流传下来的。他的方法不是他创立的，他有他的想法，但是他做了个很漂亮的结论，也没有全部解决构把问题。所以你可以讲陈景润的工作是重要，但是他比不上张益唐的工作，也比不上陈省身先生的工作，比不上周炜良他们的工作，世界的数学专家都会同意这一点
(00:01:15):
