[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[The Architect Of Fate]

Tragically that is not so .

I did like how he pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic. It's so hard these days to tell catholics apart, which to believe, which not.

I think they need to give out score cards.

His response is a real knee slapper .But it's to be expected from him .

[TimOneill]

Tragically that is not so .

I did like how he pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic. It's so hard these days to tell catholics apart, which to believe, which not.

I think they need to give out score cards.

I "pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic"? What? Where? I realise you are talking to that weird troll, but what is this new gibberish?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I did like how he pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic. It's so hard these days to tell catholics apart, which to believe, which not.

I think they need to give out score cards.

I "pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic"? What? Where? I realise you are talking to that weird troll, but what is this new gibberish?

You can dismiss me as "weird ' and a "Troll" all you like Timmy .But i know it's not so .

[Belacqua]

Well, let's sum up the arguments so far.

FakeMessiah, in the shout box, offered us a 79-second video as proof that Bruno was a martyr for science. Unfortunately Fake was apparently too impatient to watch the whole thing, because the narrator in the video says that Bruno was not a scientist. The person interviewed in the video, Ingrid Rowland, is a genuine scholar, and says that Copernicus "set the stage" for Bruno's system. The clip is too short to tell us what all other sources show: the system Bruno wanted us to adopt was a crazy unscientific religion.

Sungula has presented no argument, offered no evidence, and pointed to no sources. He claims he is not a troll, but does all the things that trolls do, and nothing else.

More reasonable posters have been fine with accepting that Bruno was not killed for science, though of course want us to keep in mind that the church was wrong to kill him. I think everyone's in agreement on that. It is wrong to burn people.

brewer pointed us to a very valuable resource: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Unfortunately this source doesn't say what brewer wants it to say. It nowhere claims that Bruno used "science thought" and instead is clear that while being an early adopter of the Copernican system, Bruno mostly relied on scripture and various mystical documents. Bruno acknowledged that he got the idea of a non-geocentric infinite universe peopled by aliens from a well-known Cardinal, who published this speculation and was not burned.

Bruno conducted no empirical repeatable experiments. (Unlike, say, the Oxford Calculators, a group of theologians who used mathematics and empirical tests to show that Aristotle was wrong about acceleration two hundred years before Bruno. So we know that people could do experiments in those days, and Bruno chose not to.)

So no one has offered any argument, evidence, or expert to show that Bruno was a martyr for science.

It was bad for the church to kill him. They didn't do it because of science.

[brewer]

Well, let's sum up the arguments so far.

FakeMessiah, in the shout box, offered us a 79-second video as proof that Bruno was a martyr for science. Unfortunately Fake was apparently too impatient to watch the whole thing, because the narrator in the video says that Bruno was not a scientist. The person interviewed in the video, Ingrid Rowland, is a genuine scholar, and says that Copernicus "set the stage" for Bruno's system. The clip is too short to tell us what all other sources show: the system Bruno wanted us to adopt was a crazy unscientific religion.

Sungula has presented no argument, offered no evidence, and pointed to no sources. He claims he is not a troll, but does all the things that trolls do, and nothing else.

More reasonable posters have been fine with accepting that Bruno was not killed for science, though of course want us to keep in mind that the church was wrong to kill him. I think everyone's in agreement on that. It is wrong to burn people.

brewer pointed us to a very valuable resource: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Unfortunately this source doesn't say what brewer wants it to say. It nowhere claims that Bruno used "science thought" and instead is clear that while being an early adopter of the Copernican system, Bruno mostly relied on scripture and various mystical documents. Bruno acknowledged that he got the idea of a non-geocentric infinite universe peopled by aliens from a well-known Cardinal, who published this speculation and was not burned.

Bruno conducted no empirical repeatable experiments. (Unlike, say, the Oxford Calculators, a group of theologians who used mathematics and empirical tests to show that Aristotle was wrong about acceleration two hundred years before Bruno. So we know that people could do experiments in those days, and Bruno chose not to.)

So no one has offered any argument, evidence, or expert to show that Bruno was a martyr for science.

It was bad for the church to kill him. They didn't do it because of science.

Wow, thanks for the recap and claiming the win, because none of the rest of us can think for ourselves or come to our own conclusions about something that doesn't mean squat in the real world. It's just so much mental masturbation that the internet is known for.

Do you feel better now, or at least better than me?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sungula has presented no argument, offered no evidence, and pointed to no sources. He claims he is not a troll, but does all the things that trolls do, and nothing else.

Keep telling yourself that

[Mister Agenda]

Good point Bel, he was not executed for science, he was executed for thinking and speaking (rather unscientific for the most part) ideas the church disapproved of. He was more a martyr for free speech.

Ah, as expected, Belacqua opens a topic and then calls his boyfriend who is the "attitude" in the relationship to tell us about the atheist conspiracy of "fabricating the history" and "everything that you read about history is wrong".

Another irrational outburst full of baseless slurs and sneering fantasy. So, you have no actual evidence-based argument against any of the detailed information and analysis I've given? Yes, I thought so. What I can't work out is why supposed rationalists get so emotional about these pseudo historical fairy tales being debunked that they act like gormless fundamentalists and/or screaming toddlers in public. This behaviour is simply embarrassing.

You keep quoting me, Tim. Why is that?

[TimOneill]

Good point Bel, he was not executed for science, he was executed for thinking and speaking (rather unscientific for the most part) ideas the church disapproved of. He was more a martyr for free speech.

Another irrational outburst full of baseless slurs and sneering fantasy. So, you have no actual evidence-based argument against any of the detailed information and analysis I've given? Yes, I thought so. What I can't work out is why supposed rationalists get so emotional about these pseudo historical fairy tales being debunked that they act like gormless fundamentalists and/or screaming toddlers in public. This behaviour is simply embarrassing.

You keep quoting me, Tim. Why is that?

Because the interface on this site is cumbersome and crap.

[brewer]

Because the interface on this site is cumbersome and crap.

Nice.

[Belacqua]

Wow, thanks for the recap and claiming the win, because none of the rest of us can think for ourselves or come to our own conclusions about something that doesn't mean squat in the real world. It's just so much mental masturbation that the internet is known for.

Do you feel better now, or at least better than me?

If you're going to be arguing about facts in history, it's generally better to read the sources. 

It's clear that you didn't read the Stanford page carefully. You've announced that you're not willing to read Tim O'Neill's writing. You didn't read the carefully presented research on the Renaissance Mathematicus blog that I linked to. You haven't read the books by Yates or Rowland. You clearly haven't read Bruno's original work. You haven't given us any reason to think that you have researched this at all. 

Now you've switched over into personal insults.