spin

Uh-huh.

You might have dreamt it, but you've "counter-argued" zippo. The Cena dei Ceneri is just one tangible example of his advocacy of science, ie his published support for the astronomical work of Copernicus.

(Incidentally, as you claim to be so expert on Bruno, have you seen an electronic copy of Lo Spaccio della bestia trionfante available in the net?)

Reason is what Bruno brought to the closed universe. What happens if your at the end of the universe and shoot an arrow outwards? Pure reason. He's right of course with his conclusions.

I like your style of insult. You'll call anybody else an employer of ad hominems, but neglect the fact that most of your posts are full of them.

Bruno advocated an acentric universe and he was actually correct. He argued for multiple worlds and he was correct. He advocated the fact that there were no "spheres" and he was correct. Fess up: you don't like Bruno. All your subterfuge has little content other than that.

I never claimed anything different to this last statement, but Bruno was basically right about the non-finite universe while Kepler was wrong. All you need to have done was read Bruno and test his theories.

This is your paltry limitation.

Celebrate him for whatever you want. It won't change the fact that he went out into Europe and argued for an infinite universe of multiple Copernican systems for ten years. That is, he advocated science. You can't smoke screen this by saying that he wasn't a scientist. We know already. He got out there and told everyone he met. Stood in front of lecture halls and did so. He conversed with British scholars about it.

Then you better not read his texts.

At least read Bruno.

I can't help you about that one.

You're a great one at missing the point. Charlemagne was a political figure. The piazzas of the world are full of politicians. Here we have a man who was burnt to death as a pariah in a jubilee year when over 20 others also burnt. The statue got erected because people 289 years later felt that Bruno was worthy of the respect he didn't get in his life, respect earnt for his contributions to science, philosophy, and to humanity in general.

You've shown nothing more so far than that you've read a few potted bio's.

You do have difficulties reading, don't you? I made it clear that it was "Probably tortured." Not that I could prove it. It seems reasonably likely.

More sound and fury.

Congratulations: you can use a dictionary. The word we use is "blindness", also metaphorically.

Incidentally, where does orb come from? The Latin is caecus, the root of "cecity".

You have no evidence, just a bad attitude towards Bruno.

In your mind you exposed facts.

You are just obfuscating your bad attitude, for which you have no reason.

The context doesn't change a thing. Yes, it was an insult. One cannot find from the context where this anger towards him comes from. Here's a bit of context:

Certainly doesn't help a bit. You still wantonly insult and no-one would see why.. except you.

You would feel more at home there.

A weasel on the word "impress", but what can one expect? I have seen only harangues with regard to Bruno on your part. I have seen no fair analysis from you. I have seen no evidence, no knowlege of Bruno's life. No sign of having read Bruno. Your contribution to this thread has been making a sham representation of Bruno. You've succeeded. It has little to do with him and you're probably aware of that.


spin

lpetrich

I will concede that theologians have usually not objected to all science, though they have objected to important parts of it.

That's arguable -- at best.

Ben Franklin was never commissioned by the Archbishop or whatever of Philadelphia to find ways of protecting churches against lightning.

But Copernicus and Galileo both used the example of Lactantius and his implicit flat-earthism in Divine Institutes 3:24 to suggest that theologians ought not to pontificate in matters that they do not understand very well. Which they did.

Lafcadio

You're arguing ad nauseam. It's not about the support for Copernicus, but the support for science.

I've done not such claims.

I seldom read e-books. All I know it is not in the electronic libraries I consulted so far.

Give me a break. Prove it. Prove that "Bruno brought reason to the closed universe". You who struggle so hard here to show that you're a careful reader of his works.

That's cheap rhetoric. I hope you don't try to make a natural philosopher out of Bruno

Correct as it happens that today we have the same view. The premises differ. The argumentations differ. Not to say that we today have the wisdom to understand we are not 100% sure if that's correct, but that all our evidence points to this.

He argued that universe is infinite and he was incorrect. He argued for pantheism and he was incorrect. So, beside arguing ad nauseam (all these being already said), do you have anything to say?

I pointed out annoyingly many times - is not the truthness of his claims I challanged, but the originality and the naturalistic approach - these he didn't have.

That is true and so irrelevant to our debate. Truth is not science. Science is not truth. Our science today does not claim it holds the truth. Our science today only claims it has the most reasonable methodology people could get to investigate nature. To do science is not to guess truths. To do science is to investigate using reason (and a certain methodology).

I told you the ancient greeks foresaw four elementary forces :Cheeky:

Well, if it's so I'm sure you could counterargue, or better bring a counterexample.

Exactly what I claimed and agreed with whenever you claimed it.

And that's the non sequitur I pointed out and disgreed with. Learn what science is. Then come back again.

Straw man. I questioned specifically his naturalist approach, his advocacy to science.

Yeah, so how does that advocate science? What does science mean, spin? Is it a word you use without knowing its meaning?

Is not like I read only scientific literature. If that's your narrowness regarding human culture, do not reflect it on me.

When you'll prove some understanding then you might make a point. Reading and not understanding it's not something to be proud of.

You can't help about anything really regarding our debate. At least I have your own declaration of your bias so I won't struggle too hard in future to argue something against you.

Oh, you didn't get that example? Let me give you the news then. Also full of writers. Also full of philosophers. Also full of artists. Of any personality which is regarded to have left something significant in this world.

Then let's celebrate Bruno for not receiving respect for his philosophy in this life, but not for advocating science.
All your arguments avoid the advocacy of science and become dilluted, exposing all what you can find to say "good" about Bruno. Your bias is so severe that you miss the topic of our conflict and mutate it into a pro/anti Bruno debate. Your anti-Christianity makes perfect sense. You're not able of rational inquiry. You have to find a good side and a bad side.

His contributions to science? Can you prove that for once before parroting it through all your messages and several times every message? I asked you for two times in a row to deal with evidence and arguments. This is the third.

You, you, you. This 90% of your argumentation, Spin, and it saddens me that to confont you I have to practice a similar type of discourse. The other 10% are ad nauseams (Bruno advocated a Copernican view) or irrelevant factoids (Bruno has a statue).

I assure you I don't. I haven't questioned whether was he or not tortured (nor the likeliness of it), but whether his recantation came because he was tortured and not because he was fearing death. Even if you accept as a hypothesis that he was tortured that still doesn't proof this is the reason he recanted. My objection was that as long as he recanted he can't be taken for granted that he chose to die for what he believed. "He recanted because he was probably tortured" does not refute my objection. Got it?

You're a failure as a psychologist.

It was a word you asked for. It seemed you weren't able to use one.

Don't blame me for some people's narrow vocabulary

Denial. A heavy burden for you.

Scripta manent.

Another paranoid opinion. I already made my case. You're boring.

Insisting on your poor skills is not the wisest argument you can hold.

Indeed. A context that starts with "such science"
I won't do a reinterpretation of my messages just to fight with your idiosyncrasies.

Spin, reading the mind of the entire IIDB population.

I assure you I wouldn't.

Today you learned a new word, Spin: cecity. Do you think I care you have not seen?

The more you mention me (and force me mention you back) in your messages, the more you prove you lost the grasp of this debate. Go and play with your semitic toys and leave this discussion for people who actually have something to say. You're wasting my time. This is a fair warning for whatever you will write in your next messages. Arguments and even opinions regarding this thread's topic I will answer gladly. Your frustrations regarding my person I will ignore. PM me if you have anything personal to say to me. You're a case closed.

lpetrich

Responding to Lafcadio:
Bruno was essentially correct, but how could anyone have had any hint about that at the time?

He was also much more of a mystic than a scientist, it must be said. To make him into some proto-scientist is absurd, at least until we can evalulate whatever arguments he put forth for his positions. Has anyone ever done so?

But the Church had made a martyr out of him, as it did with Galileo.

guy_683930

You want a god who "reveals" things to people, like Abraham, or Moses, or the prophets, for example? Why didn't he reveal anything useful? Not only would he have saved millions of lives by revealing something like the somatogenic theory of disease, it would have proven Christianity/Judaism to be the "one true religion", since its revelations are OBJECTIVELY real, instead of all the other religions that don't get revelations on OBJECTIVELY real things.

guy_683930

Bede-

You mention two examples, heliocentrism and modern creationism. Regarding heliocentrism, don't you realize that the place where God "used" to live was beyond the realm of the "fixed stars" in the Aristotelian universe, with the earth in the center? Why do you think they suppressed that knowledge? Because IT INVALIDATES CHRISTIANITY. Not only without it does god have nowhere to exist, but in an infinite universe, how did Jesus ascend bodily to heaven?

CJD

On this last post see this (on where heaven is) and this (about elements relating to Jesus' bodily ascent).

spin

As though his support for Copernicus was not support for science. What a ridiculous separation you've just made. Be reasonable.

Oh, sorry. You've just been saying all these lovely things about Bruno for no real reason.

Thanks anyway.

His argumentation. Read him.

What you call cheap rhetoric simply repudiates the universe ploddingly accepted by Kepler. (And I have nothing against Kepler.)

That's not assured in itself that he's wrong. But his position was certainly the way ahead. The others were just umm, wrong.

How would you or I know. Stop making absurd statements.

That you just don't like Bruno. Fess up.

You've pointed out that you don't like him.

You love missing out on the point. Bruno we accept was not a scientist. He got the right conclusion through theory. It's a relatively normal procedure to theorize. Einstein did it.


There is no need to argue. You are simply stonewalling with the strange notion that a person needs somehow to fit your idea of what is scientific to be able to advocate scientific positions. This is simply based on a logical fallacy.

Yet you refuse to accept that this is advocacy of science. Strange.

By advocating Copernican system, a scientific notion, he is advocating science. That should be plain enough for you. What's your song and dance for? Because you don't like Bruno. Sorry, that dislike is twisting your thought.

That's your problem. You have some strange understanding of what is necessary in order to advocate science. All that is necessary is to support a scientific position publically.

Thanks for asking. He advocates science by publishing on the subject, by teaching it, by conversing with scholars on it. Although not a scientist anyone can advocate science. Science in the sense I have been using it is the study of natural phenomena working from the formulation of theories to explain the phenomena based on coherent observation of the natural phenomena. Bruno advocated a position derived by observation of natural phenomena, observed by Copernicus.

Gosh there's supposed to be some venom here somewhere.

But you wouldn't be able to see it, if I needed to.

Go to the corner. Put the pointy cap on.

I couldn't help you on the choices you made which put you on the side of the church against Bruno. You put yourself in the position, so blame yourself.

I don't know which pair of glasses you've put on, but they're not doing you any good. Try another pair.

Nice try. You need to get aout a bit more.

You're confusing two separate issues. The subject of Bruno who advocated science involves the church's stifling of science when they imprisoned him, like when it silenced Galileo.

I'm well aware of Bruno. You are simply prejudiced against the "jester".

Advocacy is a contribution.

As I'm dealing with you, you get "you". You don't like it, provide another pronoun.

Misrepresentation is 60% of your sad performance. 40% is badmouthing Bruno for no reason.

You are simply quibbling about those things which were ephemeral to his interests.

You just don't appreciate literary allusions.

When you try to insult someone you are supposed to make your attempt communicable. When you use silly words that no-one uses, your insult fails, through bad choice of vocabulary.

When you go out and use such vocabulary in the English speaking world, you won't be understood. That's not a problem of your interlocutors but of your poor choice of vocabulary.

Burden of proof for you.

Imaginary writing.

Unsupported drivel. More simple ad hominems, no content. Typical.

More simple ad hominems, no argument. Typical.

Rolling your eyes won't improve your problems, such as you have with Bruno.

Yup, it would be a difficult interpretation even for you.

Thanks for changing the subject. You didn't really want to fess up to resorting to simple insults for want of argument regarding Bruno, you remember, the "jester".

I can see it now.

I tell you what, you use the word again somewhere else. Don't be surprised that your poor choice of vocabulary won't be understood. Learn to use the dictionary more constructively, will you? It will have better effect when you try to insult someone.

You just seem to be wasting your time. You're attacking Bruno unjustly and for no transparent reason.

Bruno is an example of the church stifling science by stifling an advocate of a particular scientific view which was not popular in the church. That was the part of the thread which interested me.

Oh Lafcadio, you don't want to play any more?? I'll help you to set your blocks up again.

You've done nothing but waste your own time since you came to the thread.

You are amusing at times, you know.

I have no frustrations regarding your person. I don't have to live with your person.

It's taken numerous posts from Lacfadio, full of complaints about my ad hominems, yet full of insults, full of insubstantial invective against Bruno, to come to this point: "You're a case closed." That's a person who knows how to communicate a scientific position.

A little bit about Bruno for those who want to know:

Giordano Bruno, who was a Dominican monk from near Naples, educated by the Dominicans in various matters including platonic writings and memory arts. I can't pin down why he was forced to flee from Naples though it was for a philosophical view and he was also forced to flee Rome likewise. In Geneva, he was excommunicated by the Calvinists specifically because of his advocacy of Copernican views.

From there he travelled around Europe -- France, England, Germany, Czechoslovakia -- teaching and writing, publishing numerous works many of which regarded his cosmological views based on Copernicus, but with his own developments, such as the infinite universe, and that the stars were like our sun and therefore hosted planets.

Invited to Venice and probably tired of living in exile he returned to Italy only to be arrested after a few months and held in a Venetian prison before being transferred to Rome. He spent eight years in prison before ending his life in flames at Campo de' Fiori. Partial minutes of his interrogation have survived and show that he was prepared to gettison some of his own writings, which were more plainly seen as heretical, but wouldn't budge on his views regarding the infinite nature of the universe. He attempted to argue for a distinction between theology and philosophy and didn't claim to enter the field of theology: his interest was philosophy. However, though Bruno hoped that a partial recanting might be sufficient to save him, the inquisitor, Roberto Bellarmino pushed for a full recantation, which Bruno was not prepared to make, so he was declared a heretic.


spin

spin

No-one other than a few astronomers, who could extrapolate on his theories.

The correctness of some of his positions means that he wasn't simply an advocate but a thinker in the field as well.

Nobody here has claimed that he was a scientist. The argument turned around the notion that Bruno advocated a scientific position and the church's action against him was a case of stifling the science he advocated.


spin

Lafcadio

spin, I gave you a fair warning that I will ignore your rubbish, now you have it. You're simply boring.


There's only one argument which though was addressed it might have not been too clear.
No astronomer used Bruno's work. No scientist used Bruno's work.

Adieux <edit>