Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 159
  1. #61
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Devastating reply. And one that displays the total ignorance of the relevant historical background and boneheaded ideological biases that have characterised all your weak little fizzing squibs in this thread. The fact remains that you have been blundering all over this topic and seem to think that glib blurts are going to be sufficient to sustain your positions. They aren't. Try actually backing your claims here up with detailed reference to the source material and relevant scholarship and let's see who really knows what they are talking about who is a weak faker.

    Your move.
    You are saying things that are simply wrong. Bruno was a philosopher and in the 16th century philosophy and science were essentially the same thing. Bruno however did more than philosophise on the metaphysical (which he did do) but also made claims as to the impact of his theories on nature. His rejection of mathematics was certainly not complete. While he did take exception to the infinite division of the continuum he did see it usefulness as a technique but denied it had physical consequences and he was more interested in those. But many of his arguments were framed in geometry and what would be called now optimisation which are branches of mathematics. But as a medieval uber nerd fanatic I'm sure you will reject all these as the wild accusation of someone who is not as widely read as your superb self.

    To explain - my prior post was not directed at you it was just expressing my mirth at a would be historian who undermines his own thin veneer of authority by bothering to interject into a discussion on a bulletin board whose purpose is to allow those interested in chess to discuss that and other topics of mutual interest. Whenever we Beetlejuice someone I just find it amusing.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #62
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You are saying things that are simply wrong. Bruno was a philosopher and in the 16th century philosophy and science were essentially the same thing.
    Nonsense. The thing that makes the new science of the sixteenth century distinctive is that it was not "essentially the same thing" as philosophy. It began to be a distinct way of examining the world using observation, experiment, measurement and mathematics - an empirical discipline. Bruno was doing something else entirely, as I explained in detail in my article. Historians of science reject the idea that he was doing "the same thing", and that includes ones like Hilary Gatti who feels that he was closer to actual scientists than earlier scholars like Frances Yates had concluded.

    Bruno however did more than philosophise on the metaphysical (which he did do) but also made claims as to the impact of his theories on nature. His rejection of mathematics was certainly not complete. While he did take exception to the infinite division of the continuum he did see it usefulness as a technique but denied it had physical consequences and he was more interested in those. But many of his arguments were framed in geometry and what would be called now optimisation which are branches of mathematics.
    Bruno's use of purely symbolic geometric analogies had as much to do with actual mathematics as Deepak Chopras' stuff has to do with physics - nothing.


    But as a medieval uber nerd fanatic I'm sure you will reject all these as the wild accusation of someone who is not as widely read as your superb self.
    I'll reject them as the desperate scrabblings of a sophist who has been called out for babbling on a subject he knows nothing about while desperately trying to defend an erroneous ideological position in defiance of historical evidence.

    To explain - my prior post was not directed at you it was just expressing my mirth at a would be historian who undermines his own thin veneer of authority by bothering to interject into a discussion on a bulletin board whose purpose is to allow those interested in chess to discuss that and other topics of mutual interest. Whenever we Beetlejuice someone I just find it amusing.
    I don't care about your local squabbles. I do care about history. If someone as ignorant and biased as you distorts it and then tries to claim I'm the one who is wrong, I'll sometimes bother to stop by and give them a kick in the head. And your bungling of the story of Bruno is just one of about four pseudo historical fairy tales you've been spinning here.

    Feel free to shut up about history and go back to discussing chess anytime you like kiddo. Perhaps you actually have a grasp of that subject.
    Last edited by TimONeill; 04-04-2017 at 01:41 PM.

  3. #63
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Nonsense. The thing that makes the new science of the sixteenth century distinctive is that it was not "essentially the same thing" as philosophy. It began to be a distinct way of examining the world using observation, experiment, measurement and mathematics - an empirical discipline. Bruno was doing something else entirely, as I explained in detail in my article. Historians of science reject the idea that he was doing "the same thing", and that includes ones like Hilary Gatti who feels that he was closer to actual scientists than earlier scholars like Frances Yates had concluded.
    What you say could be true and not invalidate my assertion. Although experimental science had started to become the fashion the Aristotelian tradition was still alive and well and would not have stopped Bruno being classified as a scientist (if the word had been coined at the time).

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Bruno's use of purely symbolic geometric analogies had as much to do with actual mathematics as Deepak Chopras' stuff has to do with physics - nothing.
    So you are also an expert on maths and physics?

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I'll reject them as the desperate scrabblings of a sophist who has been called out for babbling on a subject he knows nothing about while desperately trying to defend an erroneous ideological position in defiance of historical evidence.
    More like the balanced explanation of someone without a barrow to push and not the fanatical rantings of an dellitante in search of self-validation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I don't care about your local squabbles. I do care about history. If someone as ignorant and biased as you distorts it and then tries to claim I'm the one who is wrong, I'll sometimes bother to stop by and give them a kick in the head. And your bungling of the story of Bruno is just one of about four pseudo historical fairy tales you've been spinning here.

    Feel free to shut up about history and go back to discussing chess anytime you like kiddo. Perhaps you actually have a grasp of that subject.
    If you feel so strongly about history perhaps you should become an historian for real and not for play.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #64
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    What you say could be true and not invalidate my assertion. Although experimental science had started to become the fashion the Aristotelian tradition was still alive and well and would not have stopped Bruno being classified as a scientist (if the word had been coined at the time).
    What absolute gibberish. If the word in the modern sense had been coined at the time, Bruno would not have been "classified" as one because the word would mean someone who used measurement, experiment and mathematical language in an empirical way. At most, Bruno could be broadly classified as a "philosopher", but if we are applying modern words to him the only accurate one is "mystic".


    So you are also an expert on maths and physics?
    Irrelevant question. Ignored. Bruno's use of symbolic geometry was nothing like the use of mathematics by the actual scientists of the day.


    More like the balanced explanation of someone without a barrow to push and not the fanatical rantings of an dellitante in search of self-validation.
    "Balanced"?! And without a barrow to push apart from the threadbare remnants of the old Conflict Thesis that actual historians of science rejected a century ago. No actual historians accept any of your snivelling nineteenth century twaddle.


    If you feel so strongly about history perhaps you should become an historian for real and not for play.
    I have a day job thanks and it pays better than most academic salaries. So I'm happy to keep educating myself by reading widely in the scholarship of actual experts in the history of science and educating bumbling clowns who think their cartoon version of history is valid because equally historically illiterate New Atheist poster boys parrot the same outdated nonsense. But keep trying to attack me, by all means. That simply highlights the fact that you know you're out of your depth and are trying to distract from that ugly fact. Now run away and go talk about chess before I really bring down the hammer on you.

  5. #65
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    What absolute gibberish. If the word in the modern sense had been coined at the time, Bruno would not have been "classified" as one because the word would mean someone who used measurement, experiment and mathematical language in an empirical way. At most, Bruno could be broadly classified as a "philosopher", but if we are applying modern words to him the only accurate one is "mystic".
    What complete nonsense. By your own language the experimental and measurement side to science had just begun and while there were some pioneers who did operate that way it certainly didn't prevent those who didn't to be considered a scientist. In fact in the language of the day both were referred to as Natural Philosophers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Irrelevant question. Ignored. Bruno's use of symbolic geometry was nothing like the use of mathematics by the actual scientists of the day.
    Hardly irrelevant at all to classify Bruno's extensive use of mathematical concepts and reasoning as "not real mathematics" is just a no-true Scotsman fallacy. We have also determined that you aren't an experts on the Scottish.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    "Balanced"?! And without a barrow to push apart from the threadbare remnants of the old Conflict Thesis that actual historians of science rejected a century ago. No actual historians accept any of your snivelling nineteenth century twaddle.
    I have no barrow to push I'm just discussing the Galileo affair and other related topics with a fellow chess player. The fact that CF finds your blog enlightening and frequently links to it is fine but I am only discussing your confused articles under duress. If I wanted to pull you apart in person I would do it by posting comments on your site. However I have no interested in such an activity which would be the online equivalent to pulling the wings off flies.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I have a day job thanks and it pays better than most academic salaries. So I'm happy to keep educating myself by reading widely in the scholarship of actual experts in the history of science and educating bumbling clowns who think their cartoon version of history is valid because equally historically illiterate New Atheist poster boys parrot the same outdated nonsense. But keep trying to attack me, by all means. That simply highlights the fact that you know you're out of your depth and are trying to distract from that ugly fact.
    Sorry if I offended you but really you have a masters degree and have not produced any academic output as far as I can find. You have some training as a historian but I doubt you would make the shortlist for an academic position so no point wondering about how the salary compares.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Now run away and go talk about chess before I really bring down the hammer on you.
    Sure, just don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #66
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    What complete nonsense. By your own language the experimental and measurement side to science had just begun and while there were some pioneers who did operate that way it certainly didn't prevent those who didn't to be considered a scientist. In fact in the language of the day both were referred to as Natural Philosophers.
    Bruno could be classified as a natural philosopher, though only just. But the idea that he was a martyr for science is based on the erroneous assumption that because his mystical cosmology accepted one thing being explored by actual empirical science of the time (heliocentrism) and something else that came to be confirmed by real astronomy much later (many worlds) he was a scientist in our sense of the word and did empirical science. And so was a martyr for science. This is all nonsense. He did no actual science at all. And he did not accept those two things for any scientific reasons. He was a muddle headed mystic, even by the standards of his own day.

    Your "argument" seems to be:
    1. Some people who fell into the very broad category of "natural philosophers" were doing real science and are today referred to as scientists.
    2. Bruno wasn't one of them, but was a "natural philosopher" (well, kind of)
    3. So because he fell into that broad category he can be considered a scientist despite not doing science, because others who were doing science are considered that way.

    It's like you're actively trying to sound stupid.

    Hardly irrelevant at all to classify Bruno's extensive use of mathematical concepts and reasoning as "not real mathematics" is just a no-true Scotsman fallacy.
    He didn't use "mathematical concepts and reasoning", just mystical geometrical symbolism. It's not "reasoning" to start with a mystical "insight" and then try to explain it with some symbolic diagrams.


    I am only discussing your confused articles under duress. If I wanted to pull you apart in person I would do it by posting comments on your site. However I have no interested in such an activity which would be the online equivalent to pulling the wings off flies.
    Gosh, big tough words - you talk a great fight. When will your mighty attempts at showing how my articles are "confused" begin? Have they started yet?

    Sorry if I offended you but really you have a masters degree and have not produced any academic output as far as I can find. You have some training as a historian but I doubt you would make the shortlist for an academic position so no point wondering about how the salary compares.
    I left academia 30 years ago. But since I am the one with the actual experts in the field on my side, all this whimpering about me and my qualifications is also irrelevant. Strangely, you seem very keen on keeping it up rather than tangling with any kind of substance. It's pretty clear why.


    Sure, just don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
    I'm not going anywhere sonny. I've barely got started on you.
    Last edited by TimONeill; 04-04-2017 at 05:57 PM.

  7. #67
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Bruno could be classified as a natural philosopher, though only just. But the idea that he was a martyr for science is based on the erroneous assumption that because his mystical cosmology accepted one thing being explored by actual empirical science of the time (heliocentrism) and something else that came to be confirmed by real astronomy much later (many worlds) he was a scientist in our sense of the word and did empirical science. And so was a martyr for science. This is all nonsense. He did no actual science at all. And he did not accept those two things for any scientific reasons. He was a muddle headed mystic, even by the standards of his own day.

    Your "argument" seems to be:
    1. Some people who fell into the very broad category of "natural philosophers" were doing real science and are today referred to as scientists.
    2. Bruno wasn't one of them, but was a "natural philosopher" (well, kind of)
    3. So because he fell into that broad category he can be considered a scientist despite not doing science, because others who were doing science are considered that way.

    It's like you're actively trying to sound stupid.
    It's your strawman so no wonder it sounds stupid. Actually my argument is that contemporaries of both Galileo and Bruno would call them both Natural Philosophers and considered them the same class. Imposing our concept of science on 16th century individuals is just a mistake.

    Regardless of Bruno's methods his death was not a setback to scientific Natural Philosphy in itself since Bruno's contribution to what eventually became the scientific orthodoxy was marginal at best. However it was a demonstration of the Churches authority at least in some parts of Europe and would have weighed on the mind of any Natural Philosopher working in an area which the church might decide is a matter of heresy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    He didn't use "mathematical concepts and reasoning", just mystical geometrical symbolism. It's not "reasoning" to start with a mystical "insight" and then try to explain it with some symbolic diagrams.
    I think if you did some reading on Bruno he was more sophisticated that you have been lead to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Gosh, big tough words - you talk a great fight. When will your mighty attempts at showing how my articles are "confused" begin? Have they started yet?
    Oh dear your comprehension skills are even more limited than I originally assessed them to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I left academia 30 years ago. But since I am the one with the actual experts in the field on my side, all this whimpering about me and my qualifications is also irrelevant. Strangely, you seem very keen on keeping it up rather than tangling with any kind of substance. It's pretty clear why.
    Ipse dixit.


    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I'm not going anywhere sonny. I've barely got started on you.
    Nice to know Beetlejuice.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #68
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Actually my argument is that contemporaries of both Galileo and Bruno would call them both Natural Philosophers and considered them the same class. Imposing our concept of science on 16th century individuals is just a mistake.
    Your problem remains. If Bruno is to be considered in any way a "martyr for science", he has to have been one of the natural philosophers of the time who were actually doing science or anything like it. He wasn't. End of story.

    Regardless of Bruno's methods his death was not a setback to scientific Natural Philosphy in itself since Bruno's contribution to what eventually became the scientific orthodoxy was marginal at best. However it was a demonstration of the Churches authority at least in some parts of Europe and would have weighed on the mind of any Natural Philosopher working in an area which the church might decide is a matter of heresy.
    Garbage. There was little danger of anything that was actually able to be demonstrated causing any such problems. Bruno's speculations were all just that - theological and metaphysical speculations. Things that could actually be demonstrated were not a theological issue - they were part of what was known as "the Book of Nature", open to be explored and always able to be reconciled with revelation because both were considered to come from God. Bruno's problems came because nothing he postulated fell into this category.


    I think if you did some reading on Bruno he was more sophisticated that you have been lead to believe.
    I've been "doing some reading" on and OF Bruno for decades thanks sonny. It was complex, but it was not mathematical. And it was not science. Complex mystical woo is not more than mystical woo just because it's complex. Even if it does have some symbolic diagrams.
    Last edited by TimONeill; 04-04-2017 at 06:59 PM.

  9. #69
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Your problem remains. If Bruno is to be considered in any way a "martyr for science", he has to have been one of the natural philosophers of the time who were actually doing science or anything like it. He wasn't. End of story.
    I think you are labouring under the misunderstanding that Bruno was a martyr for science is my claim. It isn't other than in the sense that if Bruno hadn't been executed by the church no one would be discussing him 400 years later so he is obviously a martyr for something to someone. As already discussed using the word science for 16th century academics is problematic and so perhaps I would claim that he has become a martyr for natural philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Garbage. There was little danger of anything that was actually able to be demonstrated causing any such problems. Bruno's speculations were all just that - theological and metaphysical speculations. Things that could actually be demonstrated were not a theological issue - they were part of what was known as "the Book of Nature", open to be explored and always able to be reconciled with revelation because both were considered to come from God. Bruno's problems came because nothing he postulated fell into this category.
    Bruno was hardly alone in this in the 16th century and the church did take a more active role in control cosmology in the 17th century even though that was in theory part of the book of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    I've been "doing some reading" on and OF Bruno for decades thanks sonny. It was complex, but it was not mathematical. And it was not science. Complex mystical woo is not more than mystical woo just because it's complex. Even if it does have some symbolic diagrams.
    As you are barely qualified in history and not qualified at all in mathematics and none of your musings have been presented to your peers I guess that counts for nought. From what little I have read it is obvious that at times Bruno employed complex logical argument and from philosophical considerations made conclusions with natural implications. He also had a grasp of mathematics but distinguished between a mathematical device like the infinity of the continuum (although he rejected the physical implication) and the idea of an unbounded infinite universe.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #70
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    As you are barely qualified in history and not qualified at all in mathematics and none of your musings have been presented to your peers I guess that counts for nought.
    You don't really care about qualifications or peers. For example, similar things were pointed out by James Hannam, Ph.D. in the history of science, and his book God's Philosophers was short-listed for Royal Society popular book award and for the Dingle Prize of the British Society for the History of Science (as TimONeill pointed out). But you dismissed him as a "Catholic apologist" although he was critical of some of the Church's actions. Before him, there was the historian Edward Grant, a world leader in the history of science, and his books such as the Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages and God and Reason in the Middle Ages.

    But apparently, you have no problem with non-historian Neil deGrasse Tyson claiming that flat earth belief was widespread until 500 years ago and that medieval T-O maps portrayed a flat earth, and prattling ignorantly on Cosmos about Bruno.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 05-04-2017 at 06:32 AM.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  11. #71
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Medieval Christianity and the Rise of Modern Science, Part 2
    James Hannam, 31 Oct 2012

    Medieval sources of Renaissance discoveries

    Copernicus, of course, is famous for proposing that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, rather than being stationary in the center of the universe, as Aristotle had taught. It is perfectly sensible to believe that the Earth is at rest, especially given that we cannot feel it moving. However, in fourteenth-century Paris, the philosopher John Buridan and his student Nicole Oresme developed the arguments, later used by Copernicus, to explain why we cannot tell if the Earth is in motion. Aristotle proposed that the universe turns around the Earth each day. Buridan asked why it cannot be the other way around, realizing that what we observe would be exactly the same. He used the analogy of someone one a boat:

    If anyone is in a moving ship and imagines that he is at rest, then should he see another ship, which is truly at rest, it will appear to him that the other ship is moved ... And so, we also posit that the sphere of the sun is everywhere at rest and the earth in carrying us would be rotated.

    Compare that to the argument used by Copernicus in his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres:

    When a ship sails on a tranquil sea, all the things outside seem to the voyagers to be moving in a pattern that is an image of their own. They think, on the contrary, that they are themselves and all the things with them are at rest. So, it can easily happen in the case of the earth that the whole universe should be believed to be moving in a circle [while the earth is at rest].

    Of course, like other Renaissance writers, Copernicus never acknowledges his debt to his medieval predecessors. Rather, he quotes a line from Virgil’s Aeneid, giving his argument a wholly bogus classical gloss. For what it’s worth, Copernicus also used the fruits of Islamic mathematical astronomy without attribution. As the fashion of his time demanded, he would only admit to using Greek and Roman sources.

    Despite his correct argument about relative motion, John Buridan eventually decided that the Earth was not moving. He imagined that if it was rotating, an arrow fired straight into the air would land some distance away because the Earth would have moved before it reached the ground. His pupil, Nicole Oresme [a bishop—C.F.], realized this argument was false because the arrow inherits the motion of the Earth when it is fired. So, the Earth, bowman and arrow are all rotating together. Galileo covers these thought experiments in great deal in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (for which he was put on trial by Pope Urban VIII). But you would never guess from Galileo’s text that his arguments are actually rather old hat.

    Even Galileo’s most important work, Dialogues on Two New Sciences, contains strong echoes of ideas developed in the fourteenth century. The formula he derives for the motion of a uniformly accelerating body was really discovered in fourteenth-century Oxford at Merton College. And the diagrammatic proof that Galileo provides for this theorem was first illustrated by Nicole Oresme himself.

    There can no longer be any doubt that the pioneers of early modern science were far more indebted to their medieval predecessors than they were inclined to admit. But by the sixteenth century, humanism, the political correctness of its day, meant that it was respectable to acknowledge the influence of the classical world while denigrating the Middle Ages. To a great extent, this is still true today.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  12. #72
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    I think you are labouring under the misunderstanding that Bruno was a martyr for science is my claim.
    No, I'm quite clear that you realise you can't defend that claim, so you're trying to salvage as much of it as you can with this nonsense about him being a "martyr for natural philosophy". Except that still won't work. Natural philosophy didn't extend into metaphysics and theology, and that is what got Bruno executed. The tiny amount of overlap with anything to do with natural philosophy in his metaphysical/mystical cosmology - his acceptance of heliocentrism - was not one of the ideas that got him killed.

    It isn't other than in the sense that if Bruno hadn't been executed by the church no one would be discussing him 400 years later so he is obviously a martyr for something to someone.
    He gets discussed because of the persistent myth that he was a "scientist" and was executed over "scientific ideas". He wasn't (as even you have to admit) and he was not.


    As already discussed using the word science for 16th century academics is problematic and so perhaps I would claim that he has become a martyr for natural philosophy.
    And you're wrong - see above.


    Bruno was hardly alone in this in the 16th century and the church did take a more active role in control cosmology in the 17th century even though that was in theory part of the book of nature.
    The Church did not. The Church didn't bat an eyelid at Copernicus and only got concerned at Galileo when he began to stray into theology and tried to interpret scripture. Before that the Church was happily lauding him for his telescopic discoveries, accepting their implications for the Ptolemaic system and didn't give a rat's about the well-known fact that he was a Copernican. Kepler was also known to be a Copernican and yet also remained unmolested despite being a Lutheran working at a Catholic monarch's court.

    As you are barely qualified in history and not qualified at all in mathematics and none of your musings have been presented to your peers I guess that counts for nought.
    Blah, blah blah. I don't need to be qualified in mathematics, though I'm literate enough in it to follow any of the relevant maths in these topics - it isn't complex. I'm perfectly well qualified in history, unlike you, and I have the historians of the subject on my side, also unlike you. Further attempts at this weak distraction will be snipped and ignored.

    From what little I have read it is obvious that at times Bruno employed complex logical argument and from philosophical considerations made conclusions with natural implications. He also had a grasp of mathematics but distinguished between a mathematical device like the infinity of the continuum (although he rejected the physical implication) and the idea of an unbounded infinite universe.
    All irrelevant. However he toyed with geometry, he rejected using it or mathematics generally the way Kepler, Brahe, Digges, Galileo and Bacon did. He was a mystic.

    Which leaves you with your pompous but baseless assertion that, somehow, people who were doing science would look at the execution of someone who wasn't and who wasn't even executed for anything relating to natural philosophy in the broadest sense, and would have been concerned at persecution by the Church. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to stop flapping your ignorant hands around and back that claim up with some evidence. A comment by someone to that effect perhaps. Or some reference to Bruno's execution by Kepler, Brahe or Galileo that indicates or implies this. Try actually presenting arguments based on evidence rather than your usual flatulence. It would make a pleasantly fragrant change.
    Last edited by TimONeill; 05-04-2017 at 06:42 AM.

  13. #73
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,130
    So why did the Christians kill him?
    meep meep

  14. #74
    CC Candidate Master TimONeill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    So why did the Christians kill him?
    Because he held a whole lot of religious ideas about their religion that they considered wrong. It had nothing to do with science. See my article for a detailed treatment of the question:

    History for Atheists - "The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science"

  15. #75
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    No, I'm quite clear that you realise you can't defend that claim, so you're trying to salvage as much of it as you can with this nonsense about him being a "martyr for natural philosophy". Except that still won't work. Natural philosophy didn't extend into metaphysics and theology, and that is what got Bruno executed. The tiny amount of overlap with anything to do with natural philosophy in his metaphysical/mystical cosmology - his acceptance of heliocentrism - was not one of the ideas that got him killed.
    No Beetlejuice, I never made the claim. The whole martyr to science is a strawman of your invention. Perhaps you should find some who makes that claim before "demolishing" those who haven't.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    He gets discussed because of the persistent myth that he was a "scientist" and was executed over "scientific ideas". He wasn't (as even you have to admit) and he was not.
    You are confused again. Calling anyone from the 16th century a scientist is problematic since no 16th century person called themselves that. Bruno was a Natural Philosopher as was Galileo.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    And you're wrong - see above.
    I disagree and you have no special power to speak ex cathedra as far as we are aware.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    The Church did not. The Church didn't bat an eyelid at Copernicus and only got concerned at Galileo when he began to stray into theology and tried to interpret scripture. Before that the Church was happily lauding him for his telescopic discoveries, accepting their implications for the Ptolemaic system and didn't give a rat's about the well-known fact that he was a Copernican. Kepler was also known to be a Copernican and yet also remained unmolested despite being a Lutheran working at a Catholic monarch's court.
    Wasn't Copernicus' book placed on the index in 1616 until some offending sentences were removed? That would seem to be more than a batted eyelid.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    Blah, blah blah. I don't need to be qualified in mathematics, though I'm literate enough in it to follow any of the relevant maths in these topics - it isn't complex. I'm perfectly well qualified in history, unlike you, and I have the historians of the subject on my side, also unlike you. Further attempts at this weak distraction will be snipped and ignored.
    You delusions of adequacy are amusing but lack substance much like you scribbling. You have no qualification in Mathematics and barely more than the equivalent of an honours degree in History earned decades ago. Further you seem to have not been a practitioner in History ever and never published anything other than self-published blog posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimONeill View Post
    All irrelevant. However he toyed with geometry, he rejected using it or mathematics generally the way Kepler, Brahe, Digges, Galileo and Bacon did. He was a mystic.
    As already explained Bruno's understanding of mathematics and concepts like his handling of infinity was more sophisticated than you give him credit for.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Does God Exist?
    By Paul S in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5602
    Last Post: 18-07-2018, 09:19 PM
  2. Replies: 242
    Last Post: 08-03-2017, 10:16 PM
  3. Galileo fan club (Mr.G)
    By Sinister in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-11-2008, 04:11 PM
  4. picking your nose
    By chesslover in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •