spin

Not in itself. The church didn't object to the theoretical position, just as long as it didn't get practical. It stepped on church positions regarding the earth and man's position.

This is why it is a bunch of mathematicians and scientists who erected the statue to Bruno in Campo de'Fiori.


spin

Bede

Not at the time of Bruno's trial. There were no official pronouncements from the church about heliocentricism prior to Galileo's second trial. People thought the idea was stupid rather than a heresy. BTW, many worlds was a rather complicated concept at the time and does not necessarily mean the earth is not the centre of the universe. Bruno's own work is so obscure it can be hard to tell what he means but he probably did take the view that other stars are suns. But the idea that was called the many worlds doctrine actually meant something different and the church may have thought he meant this. It is hard to tell.

Just shows you how little mathematicians and scientists know about the history of science.

I fully agree that it is quite wrong to use force, let alone deadly force, against harmless crackpots. But it is not a terribly good idea to turn those crackpots into martyrs for reason either.

BTW, the records have not been purged in the sense that someone went through them to remove particular stuff (not sure what FM meant by the word). The vatican's records were removed by Napoleon and largely lost in the chaos follwoing his defeat. Nothing deliberate. Bruno only became interesting in the 19th century when his story was falsified to provide some of the missing martyrs of science by which time the records were gone. This proved rather more useful for the conflict myth than it did for the church.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

spin

From 1595 to 1597 the inquisitors analysed the works of Bruno to see exactly what his thoughts were. They concentrated on his philosophy which these works embodied.

As the notion that the earth was not at the centre of the universe -- and here he went further than Copernicus by saying that neither was the sun, for there were innumerable stars and there was an infinite number of worlds similar to the earth:

Io tengo un universo infinito, cioè effetto della infinita divina potentia, perché io stimavo cosa indegna della divina bontà e potentia che....producesse un mondo finito. Sì che io ho dechiarato infiniti mondi particulari simili a questa Terra -- From the summary of his trial

This notion of the multiple worlds was one of the accusations against Bruno in the condemnation of his philosophy. It was in fact a central underpinning of his thought. Bruno was pressed to renounce his philosophy in toto, which he eventually refused to do, bringing about his own death.

This is what I originally said:

There's a statue in the middle of Campo de' Fiori in Rome. The statue is of a man called Giordano Bruno. It marks the spot where Bruno was burnt at the stake because, amongst other things, he championed the unpopular ideas of Nicholas Copernicus that the earth was not the centre of the universe. It was the catholic church which promoted the spectacular. You see that most experts agreed that the earth was in the centre and it doesn't matter what the evidence says when most experts agree. Giordano Bruno ended his life as a crisp.

Moral to the story: listen to what most experts agree on; it's safer.

I see no factual error in it. You, Bede, have shown no error in it. You changed the subject and talked about heliocentrism, which he didn't support. He did champion Copernicus's ideas, but took them further in his speculation. He was partially correct, BTW.

He was condemned for his philosophy from which it would be impossible to subtract his acceptance of a non-earth centre to the universe. And the accusation specifically mentioned his position regarding multiple worlds.

I find your scathing approach to Bruno unwarranted. He wasn't particularly scientific: he was a philosopher.


spin

Bede

Spin,

His trial summary, if it exists (and the Roman one that condemned him to death does not) would be in Latin. I find your use of unreferenced Italian rather suspicious, as if you are trying to make it hard to work out what you are saying.

Almost all of Bruno's thought could be subtracted from his multiple worlds idea which only really features in the Ash Wednesday Supper (by far his most famous work for this reason and for its references to heliocentricism). Bruno was a magician and a magus. He was not, in any sense that we use the word, a philosopher. He was about as philosophical as a combination Ron L Hubbard and Shirley MacClaine.

You just picked a very bad example. You were looking for an individual executed by the church for being right and, as these are thin on the ground, its hardly surprising you picked someone who was right by a fluke and not who you thought he was. I'd even wager you originally meant heliocentricism and only picked up on the many worlds stuff after a frantic google search.

We can't go any further than this and I don't expect you'll be using Bruno as your example again .

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

It seems clear that spin did not mention Bruno to refight the conflict thesis, but as an illustration of the dangers of not following "expert" opinion. So I see no reason not to bring his name up again and again.

Current assessment of Bruno

Long live the human imagination!

spin's Italian quote seems to be from here

spin

I think it's farcical that the people who are badmouthing the guy here apparently can't read the source materials.

(I've already cited from what he himself had to say in front of the court which dealt with him -- il Tribunale del Sant'Uffizio di Venezia. He was tried by the church in Venice before he was packed off to Rome for the secular authorities to do the dirty work.)

Find a translation of his "De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi" to understand him and not some pre-processed version has to say. Read the final speech of the fifth (and last) dialogue spoken by Albertino in which he talks about "what truly is the sky/heaven, what truly are all the planets and the stars, how they are distinct each from the other infinite worlds, how [the idea of] infinite space is not impossible but necessary". He then goes on to advocate destroying a model of the cosmos which is apparently the currently endorsed one, adding "let it be destroyed this unique being and this centre [which is] at the earth... Give the science of the same composition of our star and world to the stars and worlds that we can see."

As no-one is going to pay me for a translation (which takes more effort than simply writing a message about him) and I don't have a dictionary with me to do a serious job and as Bede has shown no intention of giving Bruno himself a serious hearing, I'll leave it to anyone interested in the thought of this late 16th century writer/philosopher to judge him on his own merits, remembering that he was writing at the end of the 16th century, before any of the great astronomers' discoveries.


spin

(From Albertino's last statements in the 5th dialogue of "De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi")

Séguita a farne conoscere che cosa sia veramente il cielo, che sieno veramente gli pianeti et astri tutti; come sono distinti gli uni da gli altri gl’infiniti mondi; come non è impossibile ma necessario un infinito spacio; come convegna tal infinito effetto all’infinita causa; qual sia la vera sustanza, materia, atto et efficiente del tutto; qualmente de medesimi principii et elementi ogni cosa sensibile e composta vien formata. Convinci la cognizion dell’universo infinito. Straccia le superficie concave e convesse che terminano entro e fuori tanti elementi e cieli. Fànne ridicoli gli orbi deferenti e stelle fisse. Rompi e gitta per terra col bombo e turbine de vivaci raggioni queste stimate dal cieco volgo le adamantine muraglia di primo mobile et ultimo convesso. Struggasi l’esser unico e propriamente centro a questa terra. Togli via di quella quinta essenza l’ignobil fede. Donane la scienza di pare composizione di questo astro nostro e mondo, con quella di quanti altri astri e mondi possiamo vedere. Pasca e ripasca parimente con le sue successioni et ordini ciascuno de gl’infiniti grandi e spaciosi mondi, altri infiniti minori. Cassa gli estrinseci motori, insieme con le margini di questi cieli. Aprine la porta per la qual veggiamo l’indifferenza di questo astro da gli altri. Mostra la consistenza de gli altri mondi nell’etere, tal quale è di questo. Fà chiaro il moto di tutti provenir dall’anima interiore: a fine che con il lume di tal contemplazione, con più sicuri passi procediamo alla cognizion della natura.

Bede

Spin, you are quoting out of context. Bruno wrote vast amounts of unbelievably tedious occultism into which a small number of statements turned out to be true. 99.9% of what he wrote was wrong. If the church had ignored him (as it should have done) no one would have heard of the man and rightly so. He'd just be another sub-rosicrucian nutcase.

If you are interested in him read Yates that Toto kindly linked above. But please stop doing your research on the internet! For a subject you know nothing about you will invariably come unstuck.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

spin

Not for what we were talking about. Multiple worlds, coming from the removal of the earth from the centre of the universe. Its ingrained effect on his philosophy. It was his philosophy which got him in trouble. Yes, there were other issues. I listed them for you, ut that doesn't detract from the fact that his belief in multiple worlds and its conflict with the then believed world understanding

Where did you get your perceptage? Have you read 100% of the man's works? Of course not.

Then again, I'm not talking about the great bulk of his work, just the part about the different perspective on the make-up of the universe, which is after all what we are talking about, ie that the earth is no longer at the centre of the universe and therefore man is not there either.

Your thoughts on this matter are the point, aren't they?

Find the last quote I posted posted on a page on the internet. Try it. Anywhere.

You seem capable of saying nothing tangible about Bruno. You only seem capable of citing one critic. Hey, for a subject you know nothing about, it shows.

:banghead: I really find people quoting some commentator or other and never reading the source texts, and therefore in no position to say that someone is quoting out of context or not, somewhat not quite the right person to make reading suggestions in the matter.

Now, as to my original statement, about Bruno having been burnt partly because of his belief that the earth was not at the centre of the universe, have you got anything to say, given that one of the things brought against him was his belief in multiple worlds (you know, the world is not the centre of the universe).

His belief in a cosmological world view was part of his general philosophy and it was his philosophy that he was on trial for, or at least that which could be gleaned from his printed works (and that was the job of Roberto Bellarmino), that put him in a position of abandoning it in its entirety or putting himself against the church.


spin

Bede

Sorry Spin, after watching your performance on other threads, I realise I should just drop this.

B

godfry n. glad

And... in that vein, I offer up Bertrand Russell's commentary:

"Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken."

And that, I think you _can_ ascribe to NT scholars.

godfry