Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 10-04-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

"If you are tempted to dispute any of the foregoing, please be advised that I am a graduate student at a bigshot university and I will demonstrate my scholastic and general superiority by subjecting you to an unending stream of snide remarks."

Before claiming general superiority please be advised that I am also a graduate student at a bigshot university (London),--in Medicine,- arguably more useful than scholastic studies, though I bow to your greater knowledge in this field, having studied ancient history , philosophy, science and comparative religion as a mere hobby for the last 40 years, since qualifying in Medicine, (and general courtesy).

I think you will find that Philadelphia Lawyer was writing sarcastically in the style of "Bede" there

Not as a serious comment

Wads4 · 10-04-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I think you will find that Philadelphia Lawyer was writing sarcastically in the style of "Bede" there

Not as a serious comment

I wondered about that afterwards. Perhaps I am getting senile. If that is the case I withdraw my unkind words.

10-04-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I think you will find that Philadelphia Lawyer was writing sarcastically in the style of "Bede" there

Not as a serious comment

I'm intrigued that Wads4 took offence at what was an attack on me but thought it was OK when he realised the true target. Perhaps rather than saying that attack was OK simply because it was not aimed at him, he might realise that it was unacceptable aimed at anyone.

Best wishes

Bede

Amaleq13 · 10-04-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I'm intrigued that Wads4 took offence at what was an attack on me but thought it was OK when he realised the true target. Perhaps rather than saying that attack was OK simply because it was not aimed at him, he might realise that it was unacceptable aimed at anyone.

You are free to report the post or start a complaint thread but it seems to me that the parody of your position is essentially a reductio ad absurdum rather than a personal attack. The effectiveness of such an approach, of course, corresponds to the similarity of the parody to the actual position.

Wads4 · 10-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I'm intrigued that Wads4 took offence at what was an attack on me but thought it was OK when he realised the true target. Perhaps rather than saying that attack was OK simply because it was not aimed at him, he might realise that it was unacceptable aimed at anyone.

Best wishes

Bede

Yes but it seems now that Phil Lawyer was just teasing. I'm getting confused now.

Buridan · 10-05-2005, 12:40 AM

I have been following this debate for some days and would appreciate some info on which Historian of Science (or other Historian) or modern text book (in any language) it is that supports the highly negative view that has been expressed here on the Church's influence on the development of science (supporting stuff like the long left "warfare thesis" of White)?

The ones I have got on History of Science from any University Press from the last decades support Bede, so please help me find a serious study supporting what seems to be the infidel view to put on my reading list.

spin · 10-05-2005, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafcadio

He couldn't be a staunch advocate of science as in his time there was not such thing. His cosmology can be overall and not erroneously characterized as a purely mystical one.

He was a staunch advocate of the scientific advance in astronomy based on Copernicus's work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafcadio

While about him being a freethinkiner, most of his work can be deconstructed and attributed to his predecessors. He's a freethinker in the sense that his vision was conflicting with the Church's vision of his time. His philosophy among neoplatonic mysticism encapsulates also Christian elements, mainstream or heretical (for instance, he had one earlier trial accussation on Arianism).

It's normal to use what's available. That has no impact on his free thought. He held his individual views with which were not slavish adherence to anything of his era. I don't mind attempts to rubbish the guy: he did what almost no-one today (including the rubbishers) would do, ie die for his right to think what he wanted.

spin

Buridan · 10-05-2005, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He was a staunch advocate of the scientific advance in astronomy based on Copernicus's work.

According to my sources (such as Yates' biography), Bruno was no such thing? He was a rather quarrelsome mystic who used science to support some of his occult views, and seems - though he accepted Copernicus astronomical model - neither really to have understood nor liked his thoroughgoing geometrical arguments.

See e.g. http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html

"It is not clear whether the execution of Giordano Bruno, a Neoplatonist mystic who knew little about astronomy, had anything to do with his Copernican beliefs".

In fact, Bruno seems almost to have gone out of his way to discredit "mathematicians".

So I would be interested in the scholarly sources you have for Bruno being a staunch advocate of scientific advances in Astronomy?

Johann_Kaspar · 10-05-2005, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafcadio

While about him being a freethinkiner, most of his work can be deconstructed and attributed to his predecessors.

So, from whom did he copy this ?

Quote:

This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things.

Johann_Kaspar · 10-05-2005, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buridan

So I would be interested in the scholarly sources you have for Bruno being a staunch advocate of scientific advances in Astronomy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kessler

In his work The Ash Wednesday Supper, a story of a private dinner, being entertained by English guests, Bruno spreads the Copernican doctrine. A new astronomy had been offered the world at which people were laughing heartily, because it was at variance with the teachings of Aristotle. Bruno was carrying on a spirited propaganda in a fighting mood. Between the year 1582 and 1592 there was hardly a teacher in Europe who was persistently, openly and actively spreading the news about the "universe which Copernicus had charted, except Giordano Bruno. A little later on another and still more famous character was to take up the work: Galilee.

:Cheeky:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2005, 12:40 AM	#116
Buridan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 55	I have been following this debate for some days and would appreciate some info on which Historian of Science (or other Historian) or modern text book (in any language) it is that supports the highly negative view that has been expressed here on the Church's influence on the development of science (supporting stuff like the long left "warfare thesis" of White)? The ones I have got on History of Science from any University Press from the last decades support Bede, so please help me find a serious study supporting what seems to be the infidel view to put on my reading list.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.