[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[Belacqua]

Was Bruno considered a scientist? These people think so:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...xoplanets/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/brun-f16.html


You can find others that say no. Not a scientist is a position that you don't win. 

Edit: you really need names, dates, sources? St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of August 1572, the formation of Jesuits (church storm troopers), Stanford link (read it)

I had never heard of Bruno, or cared, until you got your panties in a twist about "not killed because of science". So what, scientist (considered one then and now), killed by catholics. catholics that you for some unknown reason seem to admire because of the claim over dogma, not science. Part of it was catholic supernatural dogma which Bruno spoke out against.

I've previously given sources for the stink, read.

Suck it up, you don't get to win this one.

Finally! Links to sources! Thank you!

This is from the first one:

Bruno said he inferred the existence of worlds from God’s omnipotence: by having infinite power God made innumerable worlds. Ironically, Bruno’s soaring view of the cosmos—more correct than Copernicus—stemmed from religious beliefs.

I find it odd that the writer calls Bruno a scientist but concludes his post with this. 

If Bruno reached his conclusions through non-scientific methods, why should we say he's a scientist? 

It's been repeatedly pointed out that he accepted some scientific facts -- non-geocentrism, for example -- but not for scientific reasons. 

The writer also doesn't address the fact that previous Catholics had posited many worlds without being reprimanded. 

But again, thank you for making some effort here. I'll look at the other links as time permits.

---

Was Bruno considered a scientist? These people think so:


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno

 
This source doesn't say that Bruno was considered a scientist. Here is the opening paragraph:

Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano, (born 1548, Nola, near Naples [Italy]—died February 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed . 

It says his theories "anticipated modern science." Not that they were reached through scientific means. "Intuitively" is not the same as "scientifically." 

It doesn't mention the fact that the large majority of his theories did not anticipate modern science. For example, does modern science agree that Hermes Trismegistus told us mystical truths through obscure tablets? This was important for Bruno, but not, I think for modern science. 

The source goes on to give more detail, but doesn't say why they found him guilty in Rome. 

So I don't think this one counts towards your thesis that he was a scientist.

---

I had never heard of Bruno, or cared, until you got your panties in a twist

It's interesting that you would say this.

It means that your entire knowledge of his case was gained in the last day or so. And yet you consider yourself a better judge than people who have studied the case for decades. In some cases, people who have researched the case and written books about it. You feel qualified to say that anyone who disagrees with you is "slanted" despite not having read what they wrote. 

Do you see how this makes you look prejudiced?