spin

Then you happily accept that Bruno's thought experiments constitute scientific hypotheses.

Funny, how you'd never used it until I introduced it.

Bruno happened to have been excommunicated by the Calvinists and the Lutherans as well, along with having run foul of the cathlicks in France beside them ones in Rome.

I aagree that Padua made the right choice.

You're neither adding to the conversation nor are you being funny.

So Bruno can formulate scientific theories.

And I do hope you keep it covered.

I haven't taken it up as I said because it is a tangent. I'll leave you at the end of the cul-de-sac.

Amongst the eight propositions that his inquisitor enunciated deemed to be heretical that Bruno believed were

• nothing is created and nothing is destroyed;and
• the earth moves;

He consistently argued that he was not dealing with the realm of theology at all in his theories but in philosophy, philosophy, I'll add, which dealt with the movement of the planets and the structure of the universe.

Umm, in my last post I wrote: "We have come no further from you denying that a person can advocate science without necessarily being a scientist. You must accept that Bruno advocated the copernican view of the solar system." I guess you were asleep at the time.

If you are happy that he advocated the Copernican system, then you must accept that in doing so he was advocating science. Everywhere he went he advocated the view and his developments on it.

You are certainly not being scientific here, not going on any evidence whatsoever. The fact is that Bruno from the time he was in Geneva was an advocate for scientific advancements.

Bruno, as I said, claimed not to be interested in theology. It seems you are more interested than he was.

You so far have made no effort to read Bruno.

From someone who has never proferred an iota of documentation for your uninformed analysis of Bruno, you are still getting more than you've ever given.

Like Lafcadio, I see that you have nothing to say other than the one thing you've rehashed so often your track has lost its bottom and is only scratching. You don't like Bruno. Yeah, uh-huh. We know already. Thank you for your efforts, but you've added nothing. You could just as easily have said "ditto" after a Lafcadio outburst and said as much.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

The Yalla/Bede Patriarchy discussion has been split here

DtC

Lafcadio

"You", "Oh no, you".
I don't see any evidence here. Show it and then accuse me of hypocrisy, if there will still be the case.

Indeed. But he also theorized the observation in a independent fashion of some metaphysical ideas (see the three laws and the abandon of circles, spheres and consequently making the 5 solid theory just a mathematical amusement eventually back-ed up by mysticism)

But you failed to show how Kepler's solar model was Greek because be the latter geocentrists, heliocentrists and even holders of an infinite Universe, none of them proposed elliptical orbits (I'm using them mostly as a symbol for his achievements in case you want to rant about him doing nothing else). That's why this guy is revolutionary. Yourself called this period "Scientific Revolution". By what criteria do you think Kepler is part of this revolution? By being Greek? What is this revolution about?

Irrelevant. Science today holds a lot of things it can't prove.

I never claimed Kepler relied only on his data. You're arguing against an invisible debater.

His path is not what I was arguing for. I was arguing for his scientific ideas. You may hold a) there are none - and in this case we will have a discussion where I'll oppose you b) there are some - and then we should talk about them. Arguing about his non-scientific ideas is dropping red herrings and ellude the point of the conversation. I called Kepler non-Greek for his achievements in science. So if you are to opppose me, please address my argument (in case you did understand it, otherwise you should've asked before actually criticize).

You have not. I accused Bruno of not being an advocate for science, nor a scientist, nor a natural philosopher. My accusation against Bruno was not "well, he had some mystical ideas". So please argue about Kepler for being not an advocate for science, a scientist, a natural philosopher. And you can do that by addressing what it's recognized Kepler to be a scientist for.


Straw man (though I wonder why do you chose those epithets). Yes, he held that. You see, here we talk only about astronomy. If we talk about mathematics and optics and all the other fields he contributed to, the balance will move to the other side. It's you who focus on his non-scientific ideas. If you want to make a case, just put on the table all his ideas and compare them. While you're not doing it, you'll only expose a selective observation bias, and fail to make any relevant critique to my argument.

A brief on the history of science should have them both.

Your posts (their length especially, not to say about quotes and pictures) here are a counterproof of your sayings.

If you want to talk alone you can choose whatever debate you want. I was not talking about Scientific Revolution and you approached me talking about Kepler and Bruno.


Yes, God is the axiomatic reason for all his ideas to happen, but that doesn't make the ideas not distinct.

If you'd really try to do that, you wouldn't correlate his three laws with anything mystical you could get and you wouldn't conveniently miss his contribution in other fields.

Agree. But the latter accent you just mentioned makes Kepler a scientist and an advocate for the science while dismisses Bruno. And this was my point.


I didn't dismiss Tycho's legacy, probably heated by discussion you failed to see what exactly I'm defending and you assumed a straw man. While about astrology, it was me who made a point and you failed to get it while attacked it several times with different google-found quotes (you can whine all you want, it's you who keeps coming with them). Read below about that astrology quote.

Really? You failed to understand then and you still fail to understand now. It was you the one who denied the induction. And if you'd really know what you're talking about, you could rather me accuse of waving a humean induction. I told you just have run into Bacon

If you ever have read Popper you'd know that this model avoids an induction. He can deductively prove a theory to be false. But he can't prove a theory to be true (not without induction, anyway). And then and now I talk about a proving a positive, a theory to be true.

We kept talking about Kepler's three laws for a while, I thought it was obvious.

Chronic misunderstanding from your side.

The quote belongs to the latter. Then you asked who made it famous.

It takes knowledge.


Google.ro
Luckily you told me you're a Medicine student, otherwise I'd really wonder what do you consider physics to be.
Talking about the subtitle, have you read those paragraphs about his youth, his beliefs, or about religion? Or again you're arguing from the book cover?

Straw man. Both you and I provided summaries on how the laws were built. Also you show the same faults in logic you had since we started this convservation. If I say "x is not connected to y" I don't say "x is not connected to any y".

Just emphasized a gem

I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting it's not scientific. Relativity is not contrary to QM since they address different fields. The conflict occurs when people attempt to create a ToE - again, not scientific.

Kepler performed observations on Mars while he was at Tubingen. He further performed observation on Mars while worked with Brahe's data. By showing quotes where he declares he used Brahe's data you won't make a point. What your quotes don't prove is that he used only Brahe's data.
If you don't understand simple logic, you'll make debating with you to be a real waste of time.

Science without method. That's new

Straw man. Who talks about mature science?
It was already admitted (I havent' seen any counterargument of yours) that he dealed with evidence, formed a hypothesis, created a model, tested it, predicted it - this is the method, this is science.

I blamed Bruno of avoiding to deal with the evidence. Have you shown Kepler to do that? No. I blamed Bruno of compiling others work (more exactly his formative lectures). Have you shown Kepler to do that? No. I blamed Bruno of not being a scientist nor an advocate of science. Have you shown Kepler to be so? No. Ok.
Then about Scientific Revolution, if Bruno's connections with science are ... none, (well he had some interesting opinions, but that's it) - how is he part of it? If Bruno did not have any follower (well, he had some appreciation during his time, but not followers to continue his ideas), how was he part of any revolution?

I showed it as false (at least partially, I won't deny that he might have been influenced by his mystical ideas somehow, but we surely can't draw the causality). One reason Kepler prefers Copernican model is that Mercur and Venus are never observed to be too away from the Sun. Also as a mathematical model it was more elegant. And last but not at least, what's the point of this? Did Einstein proved that his 4D reality is a succesful model before he developed his theory? No. Hypotheses are not foreproven. Read about that scientific method you keep mentioning without apparently understanding what's about.

Mainly Brahe. Yes.

You clearly don't understand much of this topic. What was Michelsen and Morley's hypothesis? What did they actually prove? You come with fictional criteria out of your sleeve. We can make his hypothesis briefly: "I believe plantes move after mathematical described laws"

Agreed. But mentioning that building a model (with mathematics as a tool) is also part of the science.

Not true. The period of Mars was well-known. By selecting data about Mars from two in two years he would have a stable (Mars,Sun) pair. Earth would be so simple to place having the two points fixed. Greek geometry

It was a hypothesis that all planets move on the same law. That the same laws work the same in nature is an assumption both in Kepler's view both in our modern scientific view.

You wouldn't expect to make a model based on Mars' orbit and to ignore the rest?

All laws are in a way phenomenally descriptive, otherwise how could they be confronted with evidence?
But I understand your objection - but again you pull out fictional criteria. Kepler's purpose was not to find general physical laws. His world had the planets up to Saturn. His theory describes this world. Not the apples falling from trees. That latter it was discovered as being the same mechanism it was another theory.

They are general laws for all plantes (known during Kepler's time). Bernoulli's law doesn't work for apples.

They have a explanatory power. They tell how the planets move. You're asking the wrong question. Newton didn't prove why people die of plague. Nor we today don't know why the physical constants have the value they have. We know how some things are, we know why some things happen. Science is not an "I have all answers" type of knowledge. A theory doesn't have to give all answers. Kepler's theory is not about gravity. Kepler's theory is not even about the drive that keeps the solar system together. Kepler's theory is about how planets move. And he answers that and explains it. If you don't like the explanation (elliptical orbit, variable speeds etc.) it's your problem. But you can't say it doesn't exist.

You have the wrong expectation. He provides an explanatory hypothesis for "why the planets are in the sky in that certain spot and no in another?"

Both you and Kuhn ignore the reasonable arguments Kepler gave for heliocentrism and focus on his mysticism. But this is not the point. With all that, this is not why Kepler is considered a revolutionary in science, but from what he started from here.

Keep searching what?
I already made a point and you keep ignoring it.
Why were Mercur and Venus always observed near Sun's position? Isn't this a rational question? Does not this question offer a rational choice for one model?
Why would I accept smaller circles to regulate planets' movement which was already assumed to be on a circular orbit? Isn't this a rational question? Isn't the principle of parsimony a rational filter?
He found Copernicanism to be true on several reasons. Some are mystical, some are not. Read that book.
Again, not that this issue will enlighten the scientific approach of Kepler, I was just trying to show that Kepler's choices for heliocentrism were not entirely mystical as you try to insinuate.

You haven't. You claimed that choosing geocentrism he couldn't develop his theory and I fail to see where you proved that. Even Brahe held a hybrid between geocentrism and heliocentrism. Question was: without having Copernican heliocentrism as hypothesis could Kepler develop his laws?

You haven't read carefully. The reason I talked about Bruno's neoplatonism was to justify why his ideas were not original and why did I claim Bruno compiled the ideas from others. And I also probably insisted that he's a neoplatonist when you came around and claimed that he wasn't


Can you point me where Bruno brings empirical evidence to defend Copernicanism in La Cena?

But it's not about supporting the correct point. This is not science. Is not like choosing the right horse in a race.
It's about having a naturalistic approach. Show Bruno having it.
How could Bruno's ideas be investigated during his time, anyway. Do you have idea when the first planet outside solar system was detected??

Is it?
"So, his brilliant 'scientific' idea came from the Greek world: the 5 perfect solids.".

Ok, then make your criticism. What passages from Bruno make you think that he indeed wants to deal with evidence to value his ideas?

8th grade triangle's geometry. With a ruler and a compass you should do it.

What coincidences do you talk about?

It explains why the planets are where they are and not somewhere else. Ask the right question and you'll have the right explanation.
And his model was good enough to be used to predict planetary positions with great accuracy many years after him. His model was not designed to help Newton, so your criteria are just wrong.

Your criticism was dirrected on how his mystical thoughts would show that his three laws are not the product of a scientific investigation. What do you expect me to talk about?


Google and check it out. "natural philosophy" is the term you should be looking for


I am not the one mentioning Church or religion here. I just mentioned Roger Bacon and you're thinking of Apostles Your synapse, your bias, your knowledge.

Now that you googled so hard on Kepler, you can try Roger Bacon to see what this guy held.

My quote is good enough to show you what Kepler thought about the astrology he practices (and wrote a book on it). I can't help if it conflicts with your prejudice about Kepler as a fanatic astrologist.

It still doesn't support your earlier point.

Which was about all this fuss around Bruno and you thought it was a great opportunity to make an ad hominem by replying to it.

I haven't called you stupid (quote me), rather your ideas.
And you failed to see that all these were replies to your venomous insertions.
Well, whine all you want, I gave you a fair warning.

It is the case. Please show in detail how this is not the fallacy aforementioned and stop avoiding the issue. I read that site once, I won't make it a regular reading because you keep vaguely addressing it.


Look at my emphasis. That is the fallacy. And it's a non sequitur.

If such a simple fallacy you can't get no wonder your entire discourse is full of them


Do I what? Do I know? Yes.

There are quasi-universal agreements and everyone is a word which can amazingly describe that.

Were they debating? Was he not arguing to support his point otherwise than repeating it while everyone else said the contrary?

NOGO

I am afraid that in this case you are the ignorant. And please do follow your own advices.

The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Note the fourth step. It calls for experimental tests in order to verify the hypothesis and the predictions derived from it.

One cannot always carry out tests to verify the hypotheses.
Evolution is a perfect example where experiments are imposible.

Please explain how to verify evolution's predicted results through "evaluation of available data, e.g. through statistical methods" ???

In fact evolution does not even pretend to do (3) that is predict quantitative results of new observations.

Evaluation of available data is contrary and really has nothing to do with verifying predicted results derived from hypotheses.

Example:
Copernicus made the hypothesis that the universe did not rotate every 24 hrs around the earth but rather it was the earth that rotated.

Think of an experiment that would verify this?

Available data does not.
Nor will any statistical method.

I can think of an experiment that will, but it has not been done nor are we capable of doing it although we may some day be capable.

Buridan

Possibly to prove that I - and not Spin - was right about NOGO, NOGO confirmed his belief in The Scientific Method Note that your are talking as if there is one, and one only, Scientific Method.

To repeat my question: What are your sources for there being just one method which is used in all sciences, whether Astronomy or Archeology?

Precisely. That is why there are several methods in use.

So what is your point? That evolution is not proven? That Intelligent Design or the great Spaggetti Monster should be allowed equal time with Evolution in School?

So what is your point? That heliocentrism is not proven? That the Church - as Historians of Science point out - was right in insisting that Galilei should not say that his theory was proven?

This is precisely why other methods than your imagined The Scientific Method is being used.

However, I would say that the present model of the Solar System, through predictions based on it, not to mention observations from space, is rather confirmed "experimentally".

Lafcadio

NOGO, not sure if I answers your questions but considering the following.

I make a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits and planets orbiting around the Sun and eventually spinning around their axis (Earth doing it in 24 hours).

If my model predicts any position of any other planet succesfully, would you consider any such observation as a succesful experiment?

Buridan

Spin defended himself, staunchly

Just that they constitute hypotheses. Things like "uniformity" is a philosophical position, not a scientific one - though some may make and confirm a quantifiable model based on it.

Funny how important it is to you to claim originality for using one of the most well known Latin quotations around.

Bruno seems to have angered almost everyone he met.

Fine

That is not what I said.

:notworthy

:rolling:

Your statement was that "he was silenced because he supported scientific views". All one can show is that his views on the physical universe was one of many accusations. Not that it was the most important, or that it was The Reason for him being silenced.

There is rather a difference between in one area for a non-scientist to support something which is scientific, and using this to "prove" that he is a staunch advocator of science.

Why you are not able - or willing - to see the difference is a bit beyond me.
:huh:

spin

This is simply rubbish. Without the notion of uniformity there is no such thing as science.

I cannot help your lack of understanding. No-one has claimed originality on the phrase, just of introducing iot into the discourse. You are an inveterate waster of time and verbiage.

Yup.

That's because you are biased.

That the earth moves is integral to the copernican system. Perhaps you disagree. Or perhaps you are just too busy dissing Bruno to notice.

You are lost in your own verbiage. Sorry.

What's beyond me is you and your mate are so desperate to exclude Bruno from the scene, that you are prepared to go to extreme lengths of pedantry and bias.

Everywhere Bruno went he espoused a scientific view of the universe based on Copernicus. He made enemies because of it, yet still he advocated the view that the universe was infinite, that there were infinite worlds, that there was no centre of the universe and that the earth was not fixed. That makes him a staunch supporter of science. Everywhere he went he advocated such views.

Now you're just going to repeat the same rubbish and in your eye I'm going to repeat the same rubbish and we are not going to get anywhere beyond this.

We've seen Lafcadio sink in the mire of hypocrisy over his defence of Kepler and his "crazy beliefs", while happily attacking Bruno for his "crazy beliefs" yet ignoring his advocacy of science. Where have you got after expending so many words? You've shown that you like arguing. Any would-be reader of this thread has long given up, so there is no point continuing. :wave:


spin

NOGO

That is not what I am saying at all.
I agree that scientists use many methods.
However what is usually referred to as the scientific method is what I have described. My point is that as you say there are other methods of doing science.

In other words we agree except that you do not seem to know that the words "scientific method" refers to something very specific which does not cover all of what science is.


I am the greatest skeptic there is. Your statement is misguided.

Of course not.

This is where we disagree.

NOGO

I am not sure that I understand what you mean.

If you make a model from bits of data and then get more data which agree with your model ... do I consider this experimenting to confirm your model?

I would say not!

To confirm a model by experiment something has to change.
If you can slow down the earth's rotation and then observe that the sun slows down as well and by an equal amount and the days get longer then you have proved by experiment that the apparent rotation of the sun around the earth is due to the earth rotation.
Going up in orbit and watching the earth rotate underneath does not do it although obviously it will make be a believer. You have not changed anything.
Why?
Because in one case you have kept everything the same and modified one parameter and then observed a predicted changed behaviour.
In the second case you have introduced new elements which can falsify the results. For example, (and this is fiction) what if there was an ether up there which also rotates around the earth and when your spacecraft enters the ether it starts rotating around the earth as the rest of the universe does.

Ok this is fantasy but the idea is clear enough. Ideally in a controlled experiment you aim to change one and only one thing and see the results. If there are many parameters you change them one at a time.

If you cannot do a controlled experiment you can still do science.
An hypothesis can become a scientific theory when it explains many things which would otherwise have no explanation or it brings new elements to existing scientific theories.

There are millions of species of insects, dozens of species of dogs and cats but only three (if my memory is good) species of elephants.
Also insects have hundreds of offspring at a time, cats three or four and elephants only one.
There seems to be a direct relation between the length of a generation and the number of offsprings possible and the variety of species.
Evolution explains why?
That is good enough for me but we cannot experiment to confirm this.
This does not mean that it is not confirmed. It means that it is not confirmed by experiment.