Definitely. Perhaps the most famous discussion of this has been the [Needham Question] (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920082/obo-9780199920082-0006.xml), which essentially asked why did modern science develop in Europe and not in China, when any observer circa 1400 CE would not likely have pegged Europe as the future center of science, or technological advancement.

I would say, that among professional historians, the question has largely fallen off the radar, but in the past it was the source of a great deal of historical debate and with most hotly contested issues, questions, or thesis, gradually historians turn away from them as the discussion devolves into attacks and debates over minutiae (kind of like many reddit threads- or debates in general). Ultimately there was never going to be a single, good answer, so eventually the debate was not really worth having.

Needham ended up concluding basically that China never stopped advancing- it did not stagnate, but was over taken when European science experienced an incredible flowering. According to Needham, it boiled down to culture. The culture of Europe promoted the sort of values that drove the Scientific Revolution.

Perhaps nowadays the focus is more on the idea of a great "divergence" between Europe and China. This has been a topic written on extensively; perhaps the biggest western scholars to enter the field have been Kenneth Pommeranz "The Great Divergence", Parthasarathi "Why Europe Grew Rich" and Gunder-Frank "ReOrient" (and perhaps R. Bin Wong "China Transformed). The focus in these studies is less on the development of science, than it is on commercial development, or the rise of European capitalism, as a unique transformation- and one very much linked to the types of patronage networks that develop during the Early Modern Period in Western Europe - the time and place of the Scientific Revolution.

Though the video linked above does not mention it- I personally find it pretty hard to ignore the rise of colonial empires in conjunction with the scientific revolution and certainly the enlightenment in my own work.

The video itself isn't bad- it's very general- so maybe the sort of thing directed towards High Schoolers, or an Introduction to World History. Perhaps some of the biggest blindspots in it are a lack of context for why many of the non-European scientists came earlier than Europe, what connection some of them had to the scientific revolution in Europe, a clear definition of what he means by Europe (though notice nearly all of the scientists he mentions are French- a hint that this is predominantly a particular western European phenomena), and the assumption that the Scientific Revolution was really a "Revolution" or that common people really took part in it, or felt it in a dramatic way. Many of these are issues we might bring up in a little bit higher level class- or by means of some discussion of the video.

Indeed this question has been asked before. Essentially the conclusion that historians have come to is that this is the wrong question to ask. As another poster has mentioned, Joseph Needham was very important in stimulating this discussion.

The question suggests that "the scientific revolution", i.e. the changes in European natural philosophy approximately between the years 1400 and 1800, is the inevitable result of investigations into nature. The problem is that there's no evidence to support this assumption. The scientific revolution happened once, in one place and in one time. So we shouldn't ask "why didn't the scientific revolution happen elsewhere?", we should ask "why did the scientific revolution happen when and where it did?". Here is a very good article by Nathan Sivin which may help to answer some of your questions regarding this point. He argues that China did have a scientific revolution around the same time as Europe; it's just that the social changes associated with the revolution in Europe did not take place in China. This leads him to examine the underlying assumptions hiding behind your question.

The kind of question we need to be asking about European science is: "why did changes in the way professional scholars studied motion, medicine, and astronomy, grow to encompass all investigations into nature?" The revolutionary part of the Scientific Revolution is its spread, the precedents established in physics and medicine were applied to the study of chemicals, of the Earth, of life, and now there are dozens of 'pure' fields and a myriad of interdisciplinary fields. What we need to understand is why this happened, and that's the thing that modern historians of science focus on.

Modern history of science has become more and more focused on individuals and events rather than century spanning ideals, which makes for good scholarship but poor popular literature. Contemporary historians of science shy away from macrohistories because the simplifications involved in making such a project manageable obscure the details that make the history accurate. We can tell a story about the pedigree of Western science running from Socrates to Antoine Lavoisier; the story of Chinese science is simply different. The scientific revolution is part of Europe's story, not China's.

Sivin, N 1985, 'Why the Scientific Revolution Did Not Take Place in China--Or Did It?', Environmentalist, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 39-50.

I would like to call into question your assumption that Chinese, Hindu and Muslim civilization produced great scientists, I would say that ancient China did not produce anyone doing scientific research in the modern sense of the word 'science', a study that employs scientific method which is based on empirical and measurable observations subject specific principles of reasoning(the historical meaning of the word evolved quite a lot, in Augustine's era it could mean any knowledge not gained via divine inspiration). When you read the magnum opus of Joseph Needham and other people, you can see that the ancient Chinese cognoscentis are more of the engineer+alchemist type, great at improvising solutions, but hardly spare any effort at connecting the phenomenons observed with a systematic theory that tries to explain things, for the few theories proposed(traditional Chinese medicine etc), nobody tried to confirm/falsify the theory with controlled experiments.