Personally what I think is inaccurate is talking about the industrial revolution being a "European" phenomenon. Realistically speaking, the spark for industrialisation came not from "Europe" as a whole, but from certain areas of the United Kingdom. The main problem when theorising about alternate industrial revolutions is that we only have one example in real life, and this spread around the world fast enough to preclude any alternate industrialisations. From my own limited reading around the area, it seems to me that technology was the "crucial" ingredient for the industrial revolution.
I think posters who are attacking the argument that China contained many of the elements commonly identified as enabling the Industrial Revolution are really missing the point in many ways. Surely if China contained elements such as higher wages (in certain areas), high literacy rates and so forth, then while these elements may have been important, they are not the causes, as Max Sinister pointed out previously.
I feel as if the causes aren't common to Europe, but only to the previously "semi-peripheral" areas of the United Kingdom, where the steam engine was perfected, the world's first modern mills were constructed, where the world's first industrial cities were built and where the railways were born. From this perspective, areas of Europe such as France and Germany played a role more similar to that of Japan, that is to say they were adopters of the revolution as opposed to the founders.