– When you saw the text, did you note potentially dangerous moments for yourself? Which words immediately became clear: they would be misspelled?

– Some of our expectations were confirmed, but others, to our great joy, were not. For example, we expected many errors in the word “art,” but those who wrote the Total Dictation had practically none. This suggests that this word is well learned within the framework of the Russian language school course. I emphasize that we do not draw conclusions “in general,” not “on average,” but only on the basis of the work of the participants in the action, and this is the most literate and active part of the nation.

The next word is “subsequently”, in which there were errors, but still their number was not catastrophic, which also shows a good level of mastering vocabulary words at school.

– There were words with a hyphen; they usually cause difficulties.

– Yes, it turned out to be difficult, for example, the word in ancient Egyptian, since to write it correctly you must simultaneously remember three rules. The first rule is to write hyphenated adverbs with a prefix By- and suffix -And. I think that in words like in Turkish there would be practically no errors, since the structure of this word is transparent: from the adjective Turkish formed adverb in Turkish using the attachment By- and suffix -And.

This rule is known so well that it is extended to other phenomena. For example, in the same text of the Total Dictation there was the word simpler, which many wrote with a hyphen, most likely by analogy with the rule for adverbs. But simpler is a form of comparative degree adjective (simple – easier – simpler), so the rule for it is adverbs does not apply. Prefix in a word simpler denotes a weak degree of manifestation of the characteristic and is written together.

The second rule that must be remembered for the correct spelling of a word in ancient Egyptian, is a rule for the continuous writing of adjectives formed from phrases based on a subordinating connection. Adverb in ancient Egyptian derived from an adjective ancient egyptian, and it, in turn, comes from the name of the state Ancient Egypt, which is a phrase built on the basis of a subordinating connection: Egypt(Which?) - Ancient(word Ancient depends on the word Egypt, obeys him). Such adjectives are written together, unlike adjectives like black and white or meat and dairy, formed on the basis of a coordinating connection that presupposes the equality of concepts (cf. black and white, meat and dairy).

And finally, the third rule: writing adjectives formed from proper names with a capital or lowercase letter. Adjective ancient egypt sk th is written with a lowercase letter, since it contains the suffix -sk-. Wed. with adjectives Shaft in , Mish in , which are also formed from proper names, but are written with a capital letter, because they include another suffix - -in.

Each of these rules individually is well known, but the application of their complex causes difficulties.

– The same as a combination of punctuation marks?

– Indeed, the most errors appear in those places where two signs must be placed at the same time, for example, a comma and a dash, and each of the signs must be placed according to its own rule. These difficulties are associated with the need to simultaneously apply two or three rules, and such cases are practically not practiced in school grammar, since at school one must have time to learn at least the core of the rules, and there is no time left for their various combinations.

The combination of different rules, in general, is self-evident, you just need to remember that the confluence of two signs is possible, despite the fact that this often frightens writers, they often ask the question: “Can two signs stand next to each other at the same time?” Yes, they can, and even should, since each of them is responsible for their own area. In the first part of this year’s Total Dictation there was the following example: ...Sophocles decided to attract actors who could play his works - this is how the theater was born. In it it was necessary to put a comma before the dash, closing the subordinate clause who could play his works, and the dash - according to the rule of a non-union complex sentence, the second part of which begins with a demonstrative pronoun So.

– What mistakes were unexpected for you? I read that in the dictation a strangeness manifested itself in a strange way: flights, orena, excitement...

– Such errors, in my opinion, are a logical continuation of one of the basic “rules” of Russian spelling - “write not what you hear.” True, in this case it is impossible to apply the continuation of this rule: if you doubt what should be written, check it, put it under emphasis. This rule applies to native Russian words, and words arena, excitement, athlete borrowed from other languages, they are not required to obey the rules of the Russian language.

The rule of checked vowels in the root of a word is the most frequent rule in all texts without exception: in order to write a word correctly nepr O stop, you need to put the corresponding vowel in the stressed position - pr O one hundred. In words athlete, arena, excitement This, of course, is impossible to do, since in these borrowed words the vowels are unverifiable, but just in case, the writers are apparently playing it safe and writing “not what they hear.”

There are always a lot of mistakes in borrowed words, since the spelling of these words must be memorized; they are not subject to the rules of the Russian language, which are intuitively understandable to everyone. And if they are rare in the practice of every writer, then there is simply no way to remember them, especially if they are not specially practiced at school, if they do not belong to the category of words that are usually taken into the frame for memorization.

There was an annoying mistake in spelling the names of states Ancient Greece And Ancient Egypt, when some protesters wrote the first word with a lowercase letter. Many were indignant that this was a “not quite spelling” error, but in fact it was a spelling error: the spelling of such words is regulated by the rule for writing the names of states. No one will probably dispute the spelling of the names of modern states, such as Russian Federation, United States of America, United Arab Emirates etc., where each word is written with a capital letter. The names of ancient states are no different from the names of modern states. It is doubly annoying to encounter such errors, since the history of ancient states is studied in quite detail at school; it would seem that this knowledge should form an integral part of the elementary educational standard of every school graduate.

And this is where the question arises about the scope of the concept “literate person”: how does the modern understanding of “literacy” differ from that recorded in dictionaries? In dictionaries, the word “literate” is defined only as “able to read and write.” But this ability does not surprise anyone in our country today; everyone in our country, without exception, can read and write, since the law on universal secondary education provides this opportunity. This began to be perceived as a natural state of affairs, therefore, in the minds of modern people, the concept of “literate” began to be filled with meanings that were not reflected in dictionaries. “Literate” is a person who not only knows how to read and write, but who does it without errors, at a high level, recognizes subtle shades of meaning embedded in texts, and has a broad outlook.

– I once wrote a column called. It is about the fact that many native speakers are very aggressive towards those who make mistakes. Every now and then they propose to imprison everyone, or even shoot them, for confusion with put on, For example. Why do you think people react so painfully to mistakes?

– First of all, there is no need to write about this so often, such phenomena are spontaneous, isolated, it is not such people who create the atmosphere of universal hatred, but the journalists who exaggerate these phenomena. There are many more people who truly care about literacy: these are, first of all, school teachers, many, many journalists and philologists who host relevant programs on TV, radio, and in magazine and newspaper columns. It’s better to write about them; their contribution is much more significant and positive than a separate outburst of aggression, which, most likely, is a continuation of an individual’s disappointment in life in general, in all its manifestations.

These are just unfortunate people who are afraid to throw out their aggression on other people, since they will probably get a rebuff, they don’t get into a fight, they just swear on the Internet, most often anonymously, throwing out the harmfulness of their character into a language that cannot answer them in any way , and he doesn’t need to, since he is great and powerful and will not suffer from such attacks.

– I don’t agree with you about aggression: unfortunately, this is not a separate surge, but a constant phenomenon. Vladimir Pakhomov, editor-in-chief of Gramota.ru, confirms this; he constantly receives letters asking him to shoot for coffee neuter and so on. That’s exactly what they write: shoot, imprison.

That’s why I wrote the column so that people could look at themselves from the outside.

– It seems to me that Total Dictation is a much more widespread phenomenon than individual aggressive antics. I think that the popularity of the action is that the vast majority of people perceive language as an absolute value, as a way of cultural self-identification that ensures a comfortable existence: this is a guarantee that you are correctly understood, that your communicative intentions are correctly recognized in the community, this, in after all, an opportunity to maintain the purity of one’s native language, perhaps thereby even demonstrating one’s patriotism.

– What mistakes are you intolerant of?

– I am tolerant of any mistakes, even swear words (not to be confused with foul language as a form of offensive behavior!), because many of them are a continuation of the system, existing as part of the language in all its diversity.

The question is what counts as a “mistake.” If the notorious “rings” and “coffee” are neuter, then these are not errors, but a reflection of the patterns inherent in the language system itself. They are recognized as “mistakes” by people who try to normalize the possible areas of use of certain words or forms; they attach evaluative labels to them: this is “high,” this is “low,” this is “acceptable in the speech of an educated person,” but this is not. There are no errors in the language itself; there are violations of the rules established by people, but such violations also happen in road traffic. There, for some mistakes, the license is taken away, but for mistakes in spelling words they don’t even charge a fine.

– How literate are modern students? And are they interested in language?

– Students are the most literate part of our society. To enter a university, they must not only pass the Unified State Exam in Russian, but receive a score in accordance with the high bar set by universities.

And the fact that they are certainly interested in language is proven by Total Dictation. This is a student event, not a philological one: it was invented by students, carried out by students, and philologists only support them. This interest in language is burning all over the world, on all continents, because it is students who, completely voluntarily and disinterestedly, on the best spring days, when they can do something completely different, organize the Total Dictation, its testing, and testing is not just a one-time an event where you can come, have fun and leave, but this is painstaking work that takes many days, very intense, since it needs to be carried out in a very short time and in very large volumes. No one forces them; their activities are not motivated by anything other than love for their native language. What more could you want from today's youth? Participation in the Total Dictation brings me into a state of euphoria: literacy is what is of great interest to our students now.

– Why is dictation a fun, exciting flash mob for the participants of your action, but one of the most boring genres for schoolchildren in the classroom? How to make Russian lessons in schools interesting?

– If dictation in schools was such a boring activity, no one would take a dictation with the terrifying name “Total”. This means that it wasn’t so bad to do it at school, since people still write dictations with joy.

It all depends on the personality of the teacher: you can talk about the same thing in a boring and uninteresting way, or you can talk about it in an exciting and exciting way, and it doesn’t matter at all what the story is about. This means that most teachers conduct dictations in such a way that you want to write them again and again. If such a large number of people are so passionate about their native language, it means that they learned this love from school. Otherwise, where does this attitude come from? Total dictation only picked up this love, and it was formed at school.

– This time the Total Dictation was written on all six continents. Usually the Russian language of those who have not lived in Russia for a long time is special, it differs from ours. Accordingly, people make mistakes because they do not use the language as often as we do. Where were there more mistakes - in Russia or abroad?

– We NEVER compare ANYONE with each other. This is a condition for the Total Dictation: the action is voluntary and anonymous. Anonymity also extends to continents.

– Not everyone likes the words “total” and “dictator”. Do you think that during the time that the action has existed, these words have been somehow “whitewashed”?

– There is nothing bad in these words, they do not need any “whitewashing”. They are not liked by those who do not know the meaning of the word “total” (“universal”) and confuse it with the word “totalitarian”. The majority understands these comic nominations and reacts to them adequately.

Maybe someone is suspicious of such words because they forget that this is a fun youth event. Novosibirsk residents generally like to play with words. So, we have another event called “Monstration”. Someone might think that some “monsters” take part in it, but in fact it is the same fun youth entertainment that takes place on May 1st as a nostalgia for the Soviet May Day demonstrations, and it gathers young people who go out to celebration with slogans like “My brother is being forced to eat porridge. Freedom for children! If you are afraid of everything, then such a slogan may seem dangerous.

So is the word “dictator” - it arose simply because the language does not have a special name for a person dictating a text at the same time to a large number of... who? What should we call the participants in this action - “dictators”, “dictators”, “dictators”? We still do not have a word for those who write the text of the Total Dictation under dictation. At school, dictations are written by schoolchildren, but in the framework of the Total Dictation, who? Maybe they are “totalitarians”? It would be nice to give this word a less threatening meaning.

– If we talk about dictators, then I have come across a funny version of “dictun”. But he is, of course, a joke.

– The word “dictator” within the framework of our action acquired a new meaning: “one who reads the text of the Total Dictation,” although it did not “soften” its meaning: the text must be written down word for word, without deviating from the original version. This is probably also a form of dictation, since a free retelling does not count as the text of the Total Dictation.

Perhaps, over time, this meaning of the word “dictator” will be included in dictionaries, along with its original meaning: “an unlimited ruler temporarily elected by the people to pacify internal unrest or to fight an external enemy; personally, when the need has passed, resigning from his duties and reporting to the people in all his actions...” (Complete dictionary of foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. Popov M., 1907). In my opinion, this word has a very good meaning. Unfortunately, its second meaning has become more active - “also a person who generally arbitrarily and autocratically disposes of something, is not authorized by anyone to do this and neglects the orders and desires of his peers.”

But it depends on us which words we use most often and in what meanings. And we are afraid not of the words themselves, but of the phenomena that we associate with them. But these are temporary associations that arose at a certain stage in the historical development of our state, and in Ancient Rome, I think, no one was afraid of this word. The fears of the era of totalitarianism will be forgotten, and with them the meanings of many words will be perceived as completely neutral.

– What words would you use to reassure those who believe that we have all become completely illiterate, and the language is dying?

– My main specialty is field linguistics, I deal with the languages ​​of the peoples of Siberia, many of which are endangered, so I observe situations when it is believed that this or that language is about to disappear, but it turns out that even those languages ​​in which says 200 people, they don’t give up so easily.

For example, 25 years ago I worked with one informant in a small Khanty village (Khanty are a Finno-Ugric people living in the lower reaches of the Ob River). She had a daughter, then a young girl, about whom her mother said that the trouble was, she didn’t know her native language at all, and then we didn’t even consider the possibility of working with this girl, because we doubted that we could get reliable information from her. And so I came to the same village 25 years later, that informant of ours was no longer alive, we met her daughter, and it turned out that she was the most complete speaker of her native language!

Compared to representatives of the older generation, it may seem that young people speak wrong and think wrong, but when the older generation leaves, it turns out that traditions are being successfully passed on, maybe something is lost, but the language is also enriched. In addition, knowledge accumulates with age, and it is impossible to compare the language competence of an elderly and a young person. For example, I graduated from school with a “B” in my Russian language certificate. But I received a philological education, and my literacy level, of course, increased, but this took many years and a lot of work. Therefore, it is premature to blame young people for anything.

I compare myself in my student years and today's students. And the comparison is not in my favor. Today's students are definitely more educated and have a much broader outlook: many of them have already seen the world, read a lot of things that I didn’t even suspect about in my student years. I entered the university in 1980. We did not know emigrant literature; “The Master and Margarita”, Strugatsky or Solzhenitsyn were read (and even then only by those who could get them with great difficulty) in samizdat, in blind “fifth” copies, under the strictest secrecy, passing on to each other these copies, literally read to holes, printed on tissue paper. Nowadays, completely different skills and abilities are in demand, many of which my peers have never mastered.

Of course, we may decide not to speak Russian, or some catastrophic circumstances will force us to give it up. But will we be able to suddenly switch to any other language en masse? Imagine: starting tomorrow you have to speak some other language. Is this possible?

Even people who have lived abroad for many years cannot get rid of their accent, the combination of words always reveals a foreigner, these are all traces of our native language, which we cannot get rid of so easily, even if we try very hard, we cannot so easily throw off our native language and dress up in the prestigious attire of any other language. These are such deep mechanisms that can disappear only when there is physically not a single person left on the entire globe who speaks Russian. But for this to happen, cataclysms on a universal scale must occur. Let's hope that they do not threaten us in the foreseeable and very distant future.

Even literate people make grammatical mistakes. It is easy to notice that some rules of Russian do not cause difficulties, while others regularly trip up the majority. It's not so much that these rules are complicated. Rather, they are simply inconvenient, and some have so many exceptions and peculiarities of application that their presentation takes up an entire page - it seems that they are impossible to learn without being an academician.

Let's look at the most typical mistakes in the Russian language, made not by schoolchildren, but by fairly literate people.

What is considered a grammatical error?

A grammatical error is a violation of a generally accepted established norm. Grammar refers to any errors related to word formation (for example, the wrong suffix is ​​used), morphology (for example, incorrect declension of a verb), syntax (for example, inconsistent with the main sentence

It is necessary to distinguish grammatical errors from spelling or speech errors.

The most common mistakes are related to punctuation:

1. Many people are used to highlighting “however” with commas and are very surprised when Word underlines the comma after it as an error. More attentive people will notice that a comma after “however” is considered an error only when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. Indeed, if the meaning of this word is similar to “still”, “nevertheless”, and it is in the middle of a sentence, then it is considered introductory and must be separated by commas. If it means “but”, as, for example, in the sentence “However, she did not understand him” (= “But she did not understand him”), then there is no need to put a comma.

2. There is often confusion with the dash and colon signs. Many, faced with a missing conjunction, intuitively understand that they need to use a more “solid” sign than a comma. But which one exactly? The rule is actually quite simple. You need to choose the most suitable words to replace the missing conjunction.

If words such as “what”, “namely” are suitable in meaning, then you need to put a colon. A colon is also placed if the first sentence ends with words denoting perception and suggesting that they will be followed by a description. These can be words: see, understand, feel, etc.

I remember (that): it was evening, a quiet pipe was playing.

He was a complex person (namely): hot-tempered, bilious, gloomy.

I recognized him immediately: (because) he was wearing one yellow shoe.

I see: a barge is floating, on it is a barefoot boy, tanned, unfamiliar, but sparkling with a smile and the very next second he waves his hand at me.

If you can insert words such as “a”, “but”, “and”, “as if”, “it”, “therefore”, “as if”, then you need to use a dash.

He took a wide step - his pants tore.

Across the sea, the heifer (this) is half a piece, and carries a ruble.

The wind blew - (therefore) the old forest groaned and creaked.

A dash is also used when the words “if” or “when” can be added at the beginning of a sentence.

(When) I thought about Grisha - he was right there.

(If) I get a fee, we’ll go to sea!

Grammatical errors related to morphology

Difficulties arise with the “nn” in suffixes (although everyone remembers glass, tin, and wood); it is especially difficult to deal with the double “n” in adverbs. And also many people are confused by the use of particles not/nor. Quite a few educated people, unbeknownst to themselves, make mistakes in management. Which is correct, “control for” or “control over”? Confusion between the two is another popular grammatical error. Example:

• quality control;
• control over the execution of orders;
• water level control.

Which option is correct? All. This or that type of control in this case is selected depending on the characteristics of the subsequent word. For example, “control over” is used before verbal nouns (perform - execution). There are other subtleties.

This article does not cover all common grammatical errors. It is quite possible to learn not to commit them by studying the rules. We hope we were able to demonstrate that learning the secrets of your native language is a fascinating thing, and sometimes a superficial acquaintance with a rule is enough to understand all its logic and expediency. We also hope that you noticed variations in the use of the rules described above in the article itself, and not just under the headings “examples”.

Often schoolchildren do not know what this or that branch of linguistics is studying. This makes it difficult to find the information you need. In this article we will look at branches of language science and the basic concepts they are learning.

Phonetics- a branch of the science of language in which the sounds of speech are studied. Concepts studied: sounds, alternation of sounds, strong and weak position of sounds, stress, intonation, syllable, syllable division.

Spelling- a branch of the science of language that studies the spelling of words and their significant parts. Concepts studied: spelling, spelling rule, spelling in roots, prefixes, suffixes, endings, continuous, separate, hyphenated spelling, use of uppercase and lowercase letters.

Vocabulary and phraseology– a branch of the science of language that studies the lexical meaning of words, phraseological units and their use in speech. Concepts studied: single-valued and polysemantic words, direct and figurative meanings of words, homonyms, synonyms, antonyms, native Russian and borrowed words, obsolete words and neologisms, dialectisms, professionalisms, phraseological units.

Word formation- a branch of the science of language that studies the composition of a word and the methods of its formation. Concepts studied: word composition, morpheme, word stem, root, suffix, prefix, ending, derivational and formative morphemes, cognate words, methods of word formation.

Morphology- a branch of the science of language that studies the parts of speech and their forms. Concepts studied: parts of speech (independent and auxiliary): nouns, adjectives, numerals; pronoun, verb, verbal forms (participle, gerund), adverb, preposition, conjunction, particle, interjection, onomatopoeia, morphological features of parts of speech.

Syntax– a branch of the science of language that studies phrases and sentences, their structure, meaning and role in speech. Concepts studied: phrase, agreement, control, adjacency, subject and predicate (simple verb, compound verb, compound nominal); definition, addition, circumstance; simple sentence, homogeneous members of a sentence, generalizing words, isolated members of a sentence, appeal, introductory words; complex sentences (complex, complex, non-conjunctive); types of subordinate parts of a complex sentence (definitive, explanatory, adverbial).

Punctuation- a branch of the science of language in which the rules of punctuation are studied. Concepts studied: punctuation marks, their functions (final, highlighting, separating); single and paired signs.

Stylistics– a branch of the science of language that studies functional styles of speech and their linguistic features. Concepts studied: speech styles: colloquial and bookish (artistic, scientific, journalistic, official business), linguistic features of styles, genres characteristic of a certain style.

Speech culture – a branch of linguistics that studies the norms of literary language in its oral and written forms. Concepts studied: literary language norms: pronunciation, spelling, morphological, word formation, syntactic, punctuation, speech.

If you need to consult on any section of linguistics, or you cannot find the definition of the concept being studied. at any time and anywhere you can ask for help from an online tutor. Training takes place through specially developed software. Qualified teachers provide assistance in completing homework and explaining incomprehensible material; help prepare for the State Exam and the Unified State Exam. The student chooses for himself whether to conduct classes with the selected tutor for a long time, or to use the teacher’s help only in specific situations when difficulties arise with a certain task.

blog.site, when copying material in full or in part, a link to the original source is required.

Science moves humanity forward, making more and more new discoveries. Meanwhile, you shouldn’t create a pedestal for scientists, because they are not always right. Science is often referred to when choosing products, things, or when discussing something. But scientists are the same people who tend to err and make mistakes. You should not expect perfection and always correct judgments from them.

During its existence, science has made quite a lot of mistakes. Some misconceptions of scientific minds stopped progress for some time. After all, people believed and studied for a long time what ultimately turned out to be either insignificant or simply incorrect. Let's talk below about the most important mistakes made by science.

Alchemy. Today, the idea of ​​turning any metal into gold seems simply insane. However, let's imagine that we suddenly find ourselves in the Middle Ages. Chemistry was not taught in schools, and no one had ever heard of any periodic table. Everything that was known was based on chemical reactions seen with our own eyes. And they can be very impressive. The substance changes its shape and color, explosions occur and sparks fly. And all this is before our eyes. Based on this alone, it would seem quite logical that such reactions would be able to transform dull, gray lead and bright, noble yellow gold. It was in the hope of achieving such a transformation that for a long time alchemists were looking for a certain philosopher's stone. It is this mythical substance that should greatly enhance the capabilities of scientists. They also spent a lot of time looking for the miraculous elixir of life. Only in the end the alchemists could not find either one or the other. The direction of science itself turned out to be a dead end.

Heavy objects fall down faster. Today it is known that such a statement is incorrect. But Aristotle himself thought differently. Although it can be understood. Indeed, until the 16th century and Galileo’s works on this topic, practically no one had studied this issue. According to legend, an Italian scientist measured the speed at which objects thrown down from the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa fell. But in fact, he was just conducting experiments that were supposed to prove that gravity makes all objects fall at the same speed. Isaac Newton took another step towards debunking this theory in the 17th century. He described that gravity is the attraction between two objects. One of them is the planet Earth, and the other is any object or object located on it. Another two hundred years passed, and man began to think in a new direction, thanks to the work of Albert Einstein. He viewed gravity as a kind of curve formed by the activity of objects in space and time. And this point of view is not final. After all, even Einstein has many controversial issues; physicists are still trying to solve them and smooth out the corners. So humanity is in search of that very theory that would ideally explain the behavior of macroscopic, microscopic and subatomic objects.

Phlogiston. Today, few people have heard of this term. This is understandable, because such a substance has never existed in nature. The term itself appeared in 1667 thanks to Johann Joachim Becher. Phlogiston was included in the canonical list, which in addition to it included water, earth, fire, air and sometimes ether. Phlogiston itself was considered as something from which fire was created. Becher believed that all combustible materials consist of this substance. When they burn, they produce the same phlogiston. This theory was accepted by the scientific world; with its help, some things related to fire and combustion in general were explained. So, the thing stopped burning if the phlogiston ran out. Fire requires air because it is absorbed by phlogiston. We breathe in order to remove the same phlogiston from the body. Today we already know that this is not why we breathe at all - oxygen saturates our cells. And burning objects need oxygen or some other oxidizing agent to keep the fire going. But phlogiston itself does not exist in nature.

After weeding the field, it will definitely start to rain. Yes, yes, for a long time scientists seriously believed in this. In reality, everything is not so simple. And today we are very surprised why people believed in such a situation for so long. After all, it was enough to just look around and see that there are quite a lot of dry lands around, which no weeding can help. This theory was very popular during the Australian and American expansion. People believed in it and still believe in it, partly because it does work sometimes. But this is just an accident! Now science clearly states that weeding fields has nothing to do with rain. The amount of precipitation is influenced by completely different factors; long-term weather conditions must be taken into account. Dry areas experience long, cyclical droughts that may be followed by a series of wet years.

The age of the Earth is 6 thousand years. For a long time, the Bible was also considered from the standpoint of scientific work. People firmly believed that everything written in it was true and the information was accurate. At the same time, they even talked about completely meaningless things. For example, the Holy Book mentioned the age of our planet. In the 17th century, one sincerely believing scientist, using the Bible, was able to calculate the birth of the Earth. According to his estimates, it turned out that the planet was born around 4004 BC. Until the 18th century, it was believed that the Earth was 6 thousand years old. But since that time, geologists began to understand that the Earth is constantly changing, and its age can be calculated in a different, scientific way. Naturally, over time, it turned out that biblical scholars were very wrong. Today science uses radioactive calculations. According to them, the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. Geologists had already put together the pieces of the puzzle by the 19th century. They began to understand that the course of geological processes was rather slow, and taking into account Darwin’s teachings on evolution, the age of the planet was revised. She turned out to be much older than previously thought. When it became possible to study this issue with the help of radioactive research, it turned out that this was so.

The smallest particle that exists is the atom. In fact, people in ancient times were not at all as stupid as they seem. The idea that matter consists of certain tiny particles is several thousand years old. But the idea that there was something less than the visible parts was difficult to understand. This was the case until the beginning of the 20th century. Then leading physicists gathered together - Ernest Rutherford, Jay Thompson, Niels Bohr and James Chadwick. They decided to finally understand the basics of elementary particles. We were talking about protons, neutrons and electrons. Scientists wanted to understand their behavior in atoms and what they actually are. Since then, science has made great progress - quarks, neutrinos and anti-electrons were discovered.

DNA doesn't make much sense. DNA was discovered back in 1869. However, for a long time it remained underestimated. DNA was considered a simple helper for protein. In the middle of the 20th century, experiments were carried out that showed the importance of this genetic material. However, some scientists still believed that proteins, not DNA, were responsible for heredity. After all, DNA was considered too “simple” to carry so much information within itself. Disagreements continued until 1953. Then scientists Crick and Watson published their research on the importance of the double helical model of DNA. This information gave the scientific world an understanding of how important this molecule is.

Microbes and surgery. Now it may seem sad to us that until the end of the 19th century, doctors did not even think about washing their hands before performing an operation. But as a result of such negligence, people often acquired gangrene. But most of the doctors of that time blamed this on bad air and an imbalance between the main juices of the body (blood, mucus, yellow and black bile). The idea of ​​the existence of microbes was floating around in scientific circles. But then the idea that it was they that caused diseases was quite revolutionary. But there was no interest in this hypothesis until the 1860s. Then Louis Pasteur began to prove it. After some time, other doctors, including Joseph Lister, realized that patients needed to be protected from germs. It was Lister who was among the first doctors to clean wounds and use disinfectants. This has significantly improved the quality of treatment.

The Earth is located at the very center of the Universe. This worldview dates back to the times of the astronomer Ptolemy. He lived in the second century and created a geocentric model of the solar system. As we know, this is the greatest misconception. But it existed in science not for several decades, but for more than a thousand years. Only 14 centuries later a new theory appeared. It was put forward by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. This scientist was far from the first to suggest that the Sun is the center of the Universe. But it was the work of Copernicus that gave rise to a new, heliocentric system of the universe. A hundred years after this theory was proven, the church still maintained that the Earth was the center of the world. Old habits die hard.

Vascular system. Today, any more or less literate person understands how important the heart is for the human body. But in Ancient Greece you could be a doctor, but you wouldn’t even know it. Second-century doctors, contemporaries of Galen, believed that blood circulated through the liver, adjacent to a certain amount of mucus and bile, processed by the same organ. But the heart, in their opinion, is simply necessary to create some kind of vital spirit. This misconception was based on Galen's hypothesis that blood moves back and forth. The organs absorb this nutrient fluid in the form of some kind of fuel. And such ideas were accepted by science for a long time, practically without amendment. Only in 1628, the English doctor William Harvey opened the eyes of science to the work of the heart. He published the work “Anatomical study of the movement of blood and the work of the heart in animals.” It was not immediately accepted in the scientific community, but then they began to rely on these provisions.

Incredible facts

Scientists aren't always right, even though we put them on a pedestal, right?

We refer to them as experts when it comes to buying things, but... scientists are people too.

Therefore, it is unfair to expect perfection from them always and in everything.

What are the most significant mistakes made by the scientific community?

10. Alchemy

Sure, the idea of ​​turning lead into gold seems a little crazy today, but take a step back and imagine living in the Middle Ages.

Imagine that you never took chemistry in high school and you know nothing about the elements of the periodic table. What you know is limited to the chemical reactions you have seen, which seem very impressive to you: changes in the color of the substance, sparks, "explosions", etc., all this happens before your eyes.

Based on this, it seems pretty reasonable that chemistry can turn a dull gray metal into a bright, yellow and precious one, doesn't it? In the hope of obtaining just this, alchemists searched for the “philosopher’s stone,” a mythical substance that, in their opinion, would greatly enhance their abilities. In addition, they spent a lot of time searching for the "elixir of life." However, they were unable to detect either one or the other.

9. Heavy objects fall faster

Today we know that this is not so, but it is quite understandable why Aristotle believed that the opposite was true. Until the advent of Galileo in the 16th century, no one explored this issue in practice. Although he most likely did not take any measurements of the speed at which the tower of Pisa fell, as legend has it, he was merely conducting experiments to support his theory that gravity causes all objects to move at the same speed. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton took it one step further by describing gravity as the attraction between two objects: between the planet Earth and any object or item on it.

A couple of hundred years later, the work of Albert Einstein opened up a completely new direction for humans, which viewed gravity as a curve formed due to the activity of objects in space-time. And this is not the end. To this day, physicists are trying to smooth out the corners of Einstein's theory and find a theory that would work ideally for the study of macroscopic, microscopic and subatomic objects. Good luck to them with that.

8. Phlogiston

What? Have you ever heard of phlogiston? Don't be upset because he never existed. Phlogiston, which was introduced in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, was another element to add to the list (earth, water, air, fire and sometimes ether). It was not fire, but the material from which fire is supposedly made. All combustible materials, as Becher argued, consist of it and produce it during combustion.

Scientists accepted this theory and used it to explain several things about fire and combustion: why a thing stops burning (the end of phlogiston), why fire needs air (air must absorb phlogiston), why we breathe (to get rid of phlogiston in the body).

Today we know that we breathe so that oxygen can help fuel our cells, that burning objects need oxygen (or an oxidizing agent) to burn, and that phlogiston does not exist.

7. After weeding the field, it will definitely rain

If only it were that simple. This is actually shocking, because humanity has held on to this idea and believed in it for so long. But you just had to look around and realize how many dry lands there are. In fact, this rather flawed theory (popular during the American and Australian expansions) may have survived in part because it sometimes works, or at least people think it does.

We now know for sure that weeding does not actually produce rain. "Rain amount" is influenced by long-term weather conditions. Dry regions go through long-term cyclical droughts and then a cycle of "wet" years.

6. Our planet is 6000 years old

The Bible was once considered a scientific work, with people believing that all the information it presented was accurate, even the information that didn't make much sense. For example, take the age of the planet.

Back in the 17th century, a religious scientist, based on the Bible, calculated that the birth of the planet happened around 4004 BC. Add almost 2,000 years to this number to get to the 18th century, because at this time the Bible-loving geologist began to understand that the Earth was constantly changing, and the resulting figure is 6,000 years.

However, perhaps those biblical scholars were a little mistaken. According to the available data today, based on radioactive calculations, the age of the planet is about 4.5 billion years. By the 19th century, geologists, having put all the pieces of the puzzle together, began to realize that if geological change was happening as slowly as they thought, and that if Darwin was right about evolution (which is also a very slow process), then the planet was much older than previously thought . At the beginning of the 20th century, radioactive calculations proved that this was exactly the case.

5. An atom is the smallest particle in existence.

Believe it or not, but in fact, man was not so stupid in ancient times. The idea that matter is made up of small units has been around for thousands of years. However, the idea that there was something smaller than the visible parts was difficult to comprehend.

That was until the early 20th century, when physicists J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick, and Neils Bohr came together to understand the fundamentals of elementary particles: protons. , neutrons and electrons, how they work in atoms, and what they are. Since then, a lot has been studied and discovered: quarks, anti-electrons, and neutrinos.

4. DNA doesn't really matter.

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time its importance was underestimated because it was considered a mere helper for protein. Even after experiments in the mid-20th century proved that DNA was the most important genetic material, most scientists still believed that proteins, not DNA, were the key to deciphering heredity. DNA, they said, is too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their research in 1953 on the importance of the double helical pattern of DNA that biologists realized just how much this molecule does.

3. Microbes in surgery

Laugh or cry, but until the end of the 19th century, doctors really didn’t think it was necessary to wash their hands before handling a scalpel. Result? Gangrene. Most 19th century doctors tended to blame it on "bad air" and an imbalance between the "four humours" (blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile).

Germ theory (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around in scientific circles for some time, but there was little interest in it until Louis Pasteur began to work hard to prove it in the 1860s. As time passed, doctors such as Joseph Lister realized that it was important to protect patients from germs. Lister was among the first to clean wounds and use disinfectants.

2. The Earth is the center of the Universe

The deeply mistaken second-century astronomer Ptolemy spoke of a geocentric model of the solar system. Moreover, this point of view was not held for 20 or 30 years, it was considered true for more than a thousand years.

However, the situation changed almost 1,400 years later when Copernicus put forward his theory of the heliocentric model in 1543. Copernicus was not the first to suggest that the Sun is the center of the Universe, however, it was after he stated this that this theory began to gain momentum.

90 years after Copernicus proved his theory, the Catholic Church still clung to the geocentric model of the planet. Old habits die hard.

1. Vascular system

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is in the human body, but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and not even know how important the heart is. Physicians such as the second-century Galen believed that the liver, rather than the heart, circulated blood along with some bile and mucus, and that the heart simply circulated the “vital spirit.” But how could they be so wrong?

Galen hypothesized that blood moved in a back-and-forth pattern and that it was absorbed by the organs as fuel. Moreover, the ideas were not developed or adjusted for a very long period of time. How long?

It was only in 1628 that the English physician William Harvey opened our eyes to the work of the heart. His “Anatomical Study of the Movement of the Blood and the Function of the Heart in Animals” took some time to take root in society, but was still accepted.