Bede

Actually, you are quite right. I did make a factual error because I only had copies of the last index (Galileo and Copernicus were removed in the 19th century) and the first (before they were added). I'll correct the mistake forthwith. As for my being flippant, your 'satire' that Wads4 mistook suggests I need to add hypocracy to your list of sins. Well done for doing some research though. Next stage is to get off the internet and actually pick up a book.

Best wishes

Bede

trexmaster

Why is a book any more valid a source than the internet?

Lafcadio

That makes him only an advocate of the Copernican position not of its scientific nature. Not any fool supporting Special Relativity is an advocate of science or scientific advancement though he can be considered an advocate of SR.

I already dedicated long paragraphs on that. Bruno didn't had a clue but his own belief that he's right or wrong. Digges had a "more scientific" approach than Bruno. If you cherish Bruno for his struggle for science's sake put Digges ahead. If you cherish Bruno just because he guessed a truth (or better said, he took it from another 'guesser' - Democritus) then why would we care about reason anymore?

You don't know what I would like so your advices seem useless. I still haven't got any counterargument to my suggestion that Bruno's ideas can be found in its formative lectures. Such rhetoric only shows there are indeed no such arguments.

That's not revisionism because you haven't proven my position is or not consistent with certain historiographies. You only say you dislike my position. The definition of revisionism is not "whatever I advocate".

Can you prove that the historiographies I thought of (it seems you already know which they are) have anything to do with these "far too many people"?

Rather a myth.

History is the reference for his portrait. If he's painted according to my wish and not based on facts, you could easily disprove what I've said of him.

So will Praxiteles or Hiter. But none are scientists nor advocates for science.

You earlier said he's an advocate of science or of the scientific development. These two claims I disagreed. I already agreed he's an advocate of copernican system. I remind you these in case you're arguing with me.

And that can say nothing about what Bruno means to history.

Oh, not only guilt but blackmail too "Oh, you think like a nazi, therefore your opinions are wrong". Sorry, spin, this is no argument and it won't work.

Your appreciations are not relevant to their value. A counterargument would be.

Indeed. Then you tell me why you associated me with the Church as an anti-'Brunonian'.

I already did. If you fail to recognize you won't prove I didn't. If you just don't want to discuss that's ok but there are nicer ways to say it.

That doesn't show he was burnt for his Copernican views, nor for this view only. This is his declaration, not the accusation. Show me the eight heads of accusation and you have a case. Lacking them you have none, just speculations.

For you, but not for what I was saying.

The point of this question is? I was only suggesting no one could defend Bruno, there were no arguments to help him, there was dangerous to help him.

Bruno didn't use Brahe's arguments. Brahe argued celestial spheres using logic and astronomy. Bruno used his neoplatonist ideology.

He tried to get audiences with Pope, he tried to recant (at least a part of) the things he said. You give him a "holy" aura he didn't have. If he indeed cherished his individual view more than his life he wouldn't have done such things. He tried to do what Galileo did, but he didn't have that choice.

Indeed let's look at the reality. Why was he arrested in 1591 and burnt in 1600?

Not one precisely. He died because he was caught in a web he couldn't get out of it(unlike Galileo). Like I previously said, the eight heads of accusation are unknown, let's not speculate that much. We can safely say he died for his beliefs without emphasizing one in particular.

Lafcadio

You can't say that either without showing a trend. I indeed can't refute your saying by few counterexamples, but I can ask you a proof. And not because I want you to dig into your sources but because your presentation contains a severe inaccuracy. 17 centuries long??? Science, as we today understand it, has few centuries old. You can refer to the "scientific revolution", or maybe you have another view (as long as you have an argument for it, no problem with me) and then please show it. When one talks about 17 centuries of conflict I already wonder which are the scientists and where are the persecutions during Charlemagne, Otto I, Louis IX or Bela IV?

Try to deny the Holocaust today in a civilized country. Try to call one afro-american a nigger. Every age has its censorship. In that age in Europe the censorship was "do not talk against King, Church or Bible". Many (proto-)scientists didn't. And much science didn't. Descartes geometry was not against the Church, to continue my earlier counterexample of Newton.

I think Galileo's problems in Italy where the real reason he didn't publish his work. Descartes is a very nice example in our discussion - because he had scientific theories that would have bring him in conflict with the Church and theories that wouldn't. He chose what to publish so that he wouldn't.

Newton is an exception only if we use a sieve with large holes.

Not that icons have anything to do with what we were talking but that was my point.

Even in 20th century they still used such ancient denominations. Pluto is not named after Disney's character :Cheeky:

Lafcadio

Hi Bede,

Depends. For instance, in France, Descartes seems a good start for it. In general I search for signs of 'age of reason'.

Then why did it preserved an index of banned books until much later? Flaubert is there, but so is Darwin. And the latter is science.

Hmm, almost. First let's say 16th century instead of 1600. But back to your claim, the Church supported the arisotelians, mostly. But I don't think there are significant signs of oppressing others. Still I can't say they wouldn't. Bogomilism (cathars) for instance didn't develop a natural philosophy from it. If they would, how would have Church reacted?

Before engaging in details, maybe it's worth mentioning that it doesn't matter how much it did, but that it did. The "how much" is hard to discuss. a) it's speculative b) it's a sensible issue (it seems here, like in many other threads - there are two ideological-driven parties - atheists and theists. If you're atheist you're against the Church no matter what. If you're theist you're pro-Church no matter what. If the premises and conclusions are already known, what's the point of the debate anyway? Two lists of subscriptions should be enough.).
While saying that the Catholic France of 18th century was the center of science and the index didn't make a difference (when even works of French authors were put on it) looks like a minimalizing position to me.

Tu quoque, Bede? I don't know Mr Lawyer. I don't care about his other opinions. I agreed with some of what he said in that message. If you don't like it or him it's your problem but don't try to make me guilty or to change my opinion because it happen a "bad dude" to have it. If Hitler would have said that, I would have agreed with him, too.

Best wishes to you, too.

Lafcadio

Oh, do you think the place where he wrote does matter (though his education and his entire youth he lived in France and marching as a soldier, do you think he became wise suddenly when he moved in Netherlands)? He was rewareded in 1647 by French court recognizing his intellectual value. Do you think he was not welcomed in France? Descartes said (I think) that he went to Netherlands to leave the noise of Paris behind and to have the quietness and solitude to think clearly. Gassendi was in France. Mersenne was in France. Why speculate that he ran from potential persecutions in France? In Netherlands it will happen that he won't publish his book having Copernican views, not in France.

Like I said, this was not in France. You said that in France it was hard to do science before Voltaire. Your counterargumentation doesn't support your view nor refute my examples.

I hope you're not dyslexic.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=123 (the last two paragraphs).

spin

After having responded to half your fractious posting Lacfadio, I dont think you have anything to say whatsoever other than the fact that Bruno disturbs you, so instead of wading through the fractiousness, I'll pass and cancel my response, leaving you with your hands empty about Bruno and why he died.


spin

Lafcadio

The only person saying Bruno disturbs me is you, spin. However I appreciate your contribution in this thread as long as it lasted and hope for better interventions from your side in the future.

Clivedurdle

This month's Scientific American has a very interesting report about the Templeton Foundation conference in Cambridge that Dawkins attended.

I'm wondering if the agenda of this debate has been subtly warped in the religios favour....

Scientific American also discusses the huge changes that will be happening this century - especially with huge population growth in Africa but minimal economic growth.

Makes me think that the Catholic position against contraception is conclusive evidence of Christianity's basic hatred of science as heresy...

But isn't religion by definition in opposition to science because it starts from a faith premise in opposition to a rational naturalistic perspective?

Lafcadio

An interesting position, though I have reasons not to agree with it.
The broadest characterization I could elaborate so far to encompass all religions I have knowledge of shows these two aspects:
- a social consciousness
- an imaginary universe, reflection of a certain reality (social, natural, etc.)
Faith it's not a premise here. Faith it's a premise in the Christian misionariate when people (may) ask "why".
A religion is not by default anti-naturalistic. There are natural philosophies which go hand in hand with official religious doctrines. If we stick to Christianity, aristotelianism may be just one example. So is aristotelianism not a rational naturalistic perspective (I don't question whether is it right or wrong in its claims, just if it can be considered a rational natural philosophy) or was it opposing Christianity (in case I wonder what d'Aquinas' work was all about)? I think if religions would totally oppose rational naturalistic perspectives any attempt to explain a natural causality would have been stopped before it could start. There are not many examples (now I cannot think of any, but I don't reject it as alternative) of such religious bigotry, and certainly such claim cannot be done about Christianity.