What was the biggest scientific mistake that stopped/drew science progress backwards for centuries ?

Math is science you mong

you're a fucking moron.
Psycho-analysis is the best way to explain emotions.
Neural nets and combinations of neurotransmitters have nothing to say about the actual experience of having an emotion, or understanding where it came from with respect to your subjective experience.

>Freud.
>psycho-analysis which is still used today

Freud did wonders for psychiatry by legitimizing it in the public's eye.
But he also created a model for the human psyche that might as well be a stone-age religion.

probably round earth and evolution are the worst offenders

we are still feeling the repercussions of this today (peer review)

he's just like Newton, his theories are partially correct, if you look past the fact that they knew jack-shit about their subjects in their time, as we still do today, *they* had a good 'start'

The King of Reason
Lord of the Mistakes

ARISTOTLE

>geocentric cosmology
>a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object
>Five elements earth water air fire and Aether
>human males have more teeth than females
>flies have 4 legs

he was uncriticizable until the 16th century with Galileo and Francis Bacon

>le Aristotle set science back! maymay

Go back to being dead, Russell.

Burger pls go

Piltdown Man

>determenism
I meant randomness*

THE GAYS.
- REDNECK SCI GUY

>>determenism
>I meant randomness*
No, I mean determinism.
That shit's been thoroughly debunked, nearly a century ago, yet Veeky Forumsentists cling to this nihilistic philosophy.
see :

Numbers

>he's just like Newton,
Except that Freud didn't use the scientific method in any sense.
No Experiments, no control groups, just self-reinforcement of whatever views he held.
He made his data fit his model, not the other way around.

>Numbers
OOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhh, I hate those fuckers SO MUCH!!

Plus, my marriage is a joke.

>using the word "debunked"
>expecting to be taken seriously

>>>/lit

Darwinism

which popsci book did you read?
"how to annoy everyone with dank scienzia memes" 2008 by neil mike tyson?

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

*free will*y and predetermined outcomes are compatible

Determinism is just a vestige of the time when the Church was involved in almost every aspect of science. When quantum uncertainty came around it became impossible to hold as a theory, but it's still a comforting idea to a lot of people so it sticks around.

The assumption (belief) that reality is objective, even though evidence points to the contrary.

It's why we will never come up with a "theory of everything".

-Paper publishing cartels
-Lobbiests
-Lack of additional studies, by peers to substantiate or refute already completed studies.

Pick 3.

>Probably someone like Freud

Before Freud:

>It's probably demonic possession!

After Freud:

>Maybe it's a natural reaction to trauma from your past?

Freud was wrong about a lot of things.

But: Congratulations, that's true of everybody who has ever had on opinion in any field, the default human state is "wrong." For psychology, Freud is like the guy who took geology from Flat Earth to Sphere Earth: Still wrong, but far less so.

>Freud is like the guy who took geology from Flat Earth to Sphere Earth: Still wrong, but far less so.
Lol even I could have put a shovel into the earth and showed that it has an interior volume.

In China they fucked up the calculation of the distance of the sun and calculated that it was only like 200,000kms away. Also they thought the earth was flat until like the 17th century.

The egyptians got it pretty close, didn't they? My high school maths teacher told us that they used shadows of their obelisks to measure the angle of the suns beams throughout the day at several locations far enough away that the curvature of the earth was accounted for, and then used that to calculate the distance of the earth the the sun.

Indeed. The Chinese did a similar thing but divided when they should have multiplied and got the wrong figure.

>believing the universe isn't deterministic
Quantum physics is bullshit to be honest.

...

Dude, geology definetively didn't evolved like that. Terrible exemple.

i know i tried to tell him we never thought the earth was hollow, we went straight to ball

Ptolemy fucked astronomy for a thousand years

Basically he made some complex as fuck geocentric models for the motions of planets and stars that worked perfectly for their measurement accuracy

string theory

only memelords use QM as a basis for nondeterminism, and they are the same memelords who argued for nondeterminism before QM for centuries

The correct answer is "Theory of Relativity" because it anticipates only reactions which interact in the perceived aspect. Many "forces" are not evident to "us" because they simply do not interact with that which we perceive, and omitting those severely limits any "real" perspective.

The first hint should be that it's little more than the formula for calculating the length of a hypotenuse of a right triangle. The universe is not "made of triangles".

>Dude, geology definetively didn't evolved like that. Terrible exemple.

What were the intermediate steps between flat and sphere?

post modernism

Well meme'd.

Geography maybe?

This.

Acceptance of real number analysis as legitimate mathematics

reductionism

trips make it true.

lqg at least offers a /potentially/ verifiable theory of quantum gravity (and JUST quantum gravity), as opposed to meme theory, which is beyond psuedoscience honestly

the fact that it dominates the focus of quantum gravity theorists so much more than a reasonable theory (such as lqg, but not necessarily) is what irks me so much.

The internet

Not really the biggest but the dogma of Darwinian evolution is still holding back microbiology.

Researchers should be paid for finding negative or no results in their data as much for finding positive results.

>Many "forces" are not evident to "us"
Doesn't matter because we experience enough speed dilation difference on satellites.
Or light diffusion.
And lots of small things.
Certainly its not super relevant, but its a thing, and its actually used

I'd argue that ethics are the worst thing that has ever happened

>what was the biggest scientific mistake that stopped/drew science progress backwards for centuries ?

Video Games.

>The world would be so much better if I could experiment on humans instead of rats.

yes you obtuse idiot, we could get past inane restrictions, work out kinks in medications, find secrets to age, cure ailments.

the answer is very obviously christianity

Failure of the Ancient Greeks to discover calculus

They were really fucking close

It depends what field you are looking into or if you are talking about science as a whole. I think the whole anti drug war has pushed our knowledge back in that area quite significantly.

Yeah i would have to agree with this

Explain.

Set theory, and, relatedly, other bad/lazy materialism like : the brain is a computer

Bourbaki faggotry, made everyone hate math

That's what always bothered me. No one believes in a aether but we all accept spacetime.

>what was the biggest scientific mistake that stopped/drew science progress backwards for centuries ?

Denying the obvious existence of the aether.

Thank you. This doesn't get mentioned enough. Aether has become taboo but depending on the type of aether model, they have very powerful prediction powers for things like frame-dragging, etc.

Yeah, it's like "Here is empty space. It has a permeability, a permittivity, and waves have a speed limit in it like all other mediums have. But if you call it a substance or anything but empty, I'm going to yell at you! Rarrr!"

I wish more "bad science" was taught in schools. It took Johannes Kepler A FUCKING DECADE pouring over planetary astronomical data and trying to fit it into platonic orbits and shit to realize it didn't work, but ovals did. More than that, he learned it should've been platonic orbits like his teacher did, and presumably that teacher before him. It took at least two generations of professor, student, and a decade of mathematically driven theory research to demonstrate an accurate theory that planets travel in ovals. And normal idiots want to believe science is magically correct, handed down by the science gods because they're not good enough to contribute. Kepler was a fucking Autist, good on him.

Ironically, science is a niche application for computing. If it weren't for Doom, literally there wouldn't there'd be no concept of a "GPU" today. It'd still be ALUs and shit.

GPUs were developed to produce maps for the military

>what was the biggest scientific mistake that stopped/drew science progress backwards for centuries ?
Theory of relativity. That idealistic nonsense was praised by some scientists only for its ideology message (to condradict materialsm i.e marxism)

Not doing the science behind the big bang,if nothing starts from nothing?"something with intent initiated the process,etc"digital physics will answer the question.

Any self respecting person calming to actually understand neurons/neural nets and computational graphs can deduce even emotional behaviours based on those structures. If you can't it just affirms his claim to your lower level intellect...

Newtonian Mechanics

neural nets are a meme and a non-explanation; part of the problem t b q h

I feel dumber just by reading this shit

when are you actually going to provide a counterclaim to neural nets being very close approximations of our thought patterns.

The main issues are loops as current nets only support forward propagation no time dependant looping (RNNs are just a shit meme) and the slacking ability to write a comprehensive training/backpropogation algorithm that accounts for neurogenesis and synaptogenesis. But Neural structures have clear ability in information representation at any level of abstraction.

Sure what we define as emotions are also largely dependant the chemicals that affect our general physical state, but even those are mostly regulated by our brain. The chemicals in our brain are more similar the adjustments to our loss functions (learning methods) than anything else.

Ever persisting human nature.

Yeah emotions is just experience of hormones expression. And 90% of various emotions is exactly the same feeling in different cognitive contexts.

Who hurt you?

Anytime academic authorities have claims subjective interpretive evidence that supports the status quo is more rational and objective proof.
That's basically it.
The belief that using fallacies and biases are ok.
>In before "fallacy-fallacy" fallacy
>See pic

Sorry, autocorrect.
Anytime academic authorities have claimed that subjective interpretive evidence that supports the status quo is more rational than objective proof.

*sorry

Data is an Iceman.

>dark matter is pretty similar
L0Lno fgt pls

"math" is one word
"science" is a different word
different words have different meanings
"math" is not "science"
try2follow fgt pls

>The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations
... especially among those who properly spell it "aether", fgt pls

>The assumption (belief)
"assumption" is a word different from "belief"
two different words, two different meanings
Lrn2difference fgt pls

>I know QM better than Heisenberg
stfu and gtfo fgt pls

>The universe is not "made of triangles"
Lrn2minkowski fgt pls

maybe he was talking about the hip hop term. As in ether-ing someone. Like bohr when bohr said
>Alber, if god wants to play dice let him
he could have been said to have ether-ed einstein. Einstein and his collaborative EPR paper also got ether-ed by the bell experiments.

>In before "fallacy-fallacy" fallacy
>blames autocorrect
>needs autocorrect bcoz illiterate
fgt pls

>maybe he was not
>maybe he was retard
like you

???

The internet.

I dunno, when the ionians were denounced as heretics to the Aristotelian gospel, and when the dodecahedron was considered such dangerous knowledge it "had to be kept secret for fear of riots"...

>science is self-correcting

No it's not.