> 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?