> Humans made gradual progress before the scientific method
When was 'before the scientific method' exactly?
> it was slow and kind of random.
I would argue it wasn't random at all -- it was directed towards human needs and desires as appropriate to the times. There was never a period where humans stopped using their intelligence and problem solving skills to improve their lives in whatever ways were available.
> If you look at the historical pace of innovation it tremendously accelerated after the scientific method became widespread.
When did it become widespread? Where did it spread to? Did those places all show a similar increase in innovation in the years after?
Google says:
"While elements of the scientific method existed in ancient times, the modern scientific method is generally attributed to Sir Francis Bacon who outlined it in his 1620 treatise "Novum Organum," placing the invention of the scientific method during the early 17th century during the Scientific Revolution;"
which sounds about right.
It was much more prevalent in free market countries. Authoritarian economies tend to be too rigid to experiment and develop new things.
> "While elements of the scientific method existed in ancient times, the modern scientific method is generally attributed to Sir Francis Bacon who outlined it in his 1620 treatise "Novum Organum,"
Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were available?
> Authoritarian economies tend to be too rigid to experiment and develop new things.
The German regime during the years between 1930 and 1945 is generally understood to have been highly authoritarian and was responsible for some very famous technological breakthroughs in fields such as rocketry and aviation.
> Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were available?
It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is?
> The German regime
Yes, it was. And I wrote "tend to be" not "absolutely 100%".
> It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is?
I take from that response that you just assume that the scientific method was important but don't know why. I will posit that is because it wasn't as important as you assume.
> tend to be
What number of exceptions would there need to be before you accepted that the entire premise was wrong?
I conclude you are just being argumentative.
How did you tell the difference between being right while facing an obstinate opponent, and being argumentative?