I always wonderes why exactly the ancient "scientists" are held in such high regard...

I always wonderes why exactly the ancient "scientists" are held in such high regard. 99% of their "knowledge" was complete bullshit and literally talking out of their ass. Take pic related for example. How is his "medicine" theory of the four humours so different from a Shaman reading the futures from the bones of a dead animal? Its both just bullshit. There are countless examples where the ancient "scientist" were fundamentally wrong. So why are we admiring them, if they were literally not smarter than the Shamans of some ancient tribe?

I don't understand your point or if you even have one

They were not scientists. Not even in sarcastic quotation marks. They were philosophers concerned with the makeup of the natural world around them, hence "natural philosophers".
The reason they are admired because they were the first to examine the world through (mostly) rational, logical and/or empirical lens. They didn't reach the right conclusions, but how could they? They were the first to even TRY. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and I very much doubt YOU could do a much better job if you were born in a time when writing was still a novelty.

Except that we dont stand on their shoulders, because they have contributed almost nothing to modern sciences. How is modern science standing on the shoulders of this magnified Shaman, and his absurd theories?

Especially, why are we admiring them so much while completely shitting over scientists who ACTUALLY attributed to modern sciences? (like, for example, Roger Bacon)

Even if they didn't actually achieve a whole lot in the sense of new or factual discoveries, they pioneered the very idea of thinking about the world around them and how it works from a logical, theory-based mindset. This is what they are admired for.

They contributed by providing the scholarly framework from which the first true scientists worked. The scientific method is heavily inspired by (if not outright based on) the scholastic practices in European universities.

and a couple of more things:
Hippocrates was not a "magnified shaman". The primary feature that distinguished the Greeks was their complete rejection of supernatural or divine causes. That's the primary difference between them and all thinkers who came before them. They rejected supernatural causation even when it was very tempting to just say "fuck it, the gods do it", for example the seemingly arbitrary movement of the planets.

And how IS modern science standing on his shoulders? Well, how is modern science standing on the shoulders of caloric theory? A fundamental principle of the scientific method is better theories superseding worse ones. He came up with his theories, and these turned out to be wrong. Doesn't make him irrelevant or unimportant.

uhh noo, scientific method was developed by francis bacon and others, ancient greeks didn't have anything even remotely close to it, in fact even the complete opposite was widely spread (platonism). Aristotelism though was held in low regard and had only very little influence in the ancient world, although it was much closer to todays scientific method.

platonism basically is theology, it has little to do with science. platonism is what dominated the ancient "sciences", not artistotelism.

Because he was among the firsts ones to state something like this:
>People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe

Francis Bacon didn't live in a vacuum. He didn't even "invent" it singlehandedly, at most he codified it. And even then, it took some 150 years for it to be widely adopted.

I can't really comment on pre-medieval affairs, but Aristotle and his Physics were THE authority on all natural philosophy in both Arab and European intellectual circles. Even when they weren't, it was usually Ptolemy, and half of that guy's work in natural philosophy is just continuation, extension and refinement of Aristotle's ideas.

So it all comes down to a anti-church circle jerk.

And it was the Greek thinkers and medieval universities that begat the intellectual tradition that allowed Bacon to codify the axioms of science. All western intellectual development ultimately finds it roots in the Greek thinkers.
That's the whole reason there is admiration for them despite their incorrect conclusions, they laid the necessary intellectual ground work for science to even exist.

In fact, Europeans didn't have access to ANY of Plato's dialogues (besides literally ONE) before coming to contact with the Arabs (who, too, didn't have too many). Most of Plato's works only reached Europe after the fall of Byzantium.

It's kind of like how even though Kamina was the weakest character in the story, the entire team was driven by his spirit. Without him there would have been no Gurren Lagann.

It comes down to being the first one that seek natural causes instead of the supernatural. Am I answering to a bait thread?

>Am I answering to a bait thread?
welcome to Veeky Forums

this is why stemlords need some kind of humanities education

Not even all humanities. Just the history of science is a very interesting subject to study.

Not even that, just a functioning brain

We're no better in saying that a gravitational field keeps object orbiting. Fields and waves aren't physical. We just keep pushing god into a corner, just in a more complicated way with math.

God was always the point at the origin, it's just that this was and will be forgotten and rediscovered by brainlets ad nauseam for the centuries to come.

This. History of science and the intellectual underpinnings of the field should be required for any STEM degree.