Buridan

Johann: No one doubts that Bruno propagated Copernicus' model, and had his reasons for this. The question I asked was especially for scholarly sources for Bruno being a staunch advocate of SCIENTIFIC advances in Astronomy (by which I mean staunch supporter of empirical and mathematical methods).

sorompio

So you mean there were never conflicts between the Church and Science? Well, your guess.

Though the Catholic Church was the main obstacle to science through the ages, the rest had also some responsability. To name Newton is to mention some exception. It was accepted in England, but it wasn't so easy in countries like France, where Voltaire did some work to spread the word.

In the century preceding the epoch of Newton, a great religious and political revolution had taken place -- the Reformation. Though its effect had not been the securing of complete liberty for thought, it had weakened many of the old ecclesiastical bonds. In the reformed countries there was no power to express a condemnation of Newton's works, and among the clergy there was no disposition to give themselves any concern about the matter. At first the attention of the Protestant was engrossed by the movements of his great enemy the Catholic, and when that source of disquietude ceased, and the inevitable partitions of the Reformation arose, that attention was fastened upon the rival and antagonistic Churches. The Lutheran, the Calvinist, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, had something more urgent on hand than Newton's mathematical demonstrations.

So, uncondemned, and indeed unobserved, in this clamor of fighting sects, Newton's grand theory solidly established itself. Its philosophical significance was infinitely more momentous than the dogmas that these persons were quarreling about. It not only accepted the heliocentric theory and the laws discovered by Kepler, but it proved that, no matter what might be the weight of opposing ecclesiastical authority, the sun must be the centre of our system, and that Kepler's laws are the result of a mathematical necessity. It is impossible that they should be other than they are. (From History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science)



And do you see why an educated man wouldn't use angels and saints to name stars? Why elevate the Dark Ages to the stars? See the pattern?

Lafcadio

An addenda to my previous post: that the other stars are suns and that they have moons was first held by Democritus. It's interesting that he held that there may be worlds with no suns or moons. This was the last spot of originality I had left for Bruno.

I want to make one difference between an astronomy model and a cosmology. Do we know anything about Bruno studying the sky? No. Studying the planet movement or anything else? No. Bruno was no astronomer. I don't see (like Buridan above) how Bruno is an advocate of the scientific advance in astronomy.
Who many early astronomers quote Bruno on a serious issue of astronomy? But how many quote Kepler? Kepler was the advocate of such advance. Kepler was the pioneer. Bruno was just a jester. But Bruno outweights Kepler in matters of notoriety. And honestly, talking of "what if"s, if Bruno have never existed, I see the evolution of astronomy pretty much unchanged. Kepler did all the hard job necessary to render Ptolemeic view as useless and put the scientific basis of modern astronomy and view upon our solar system. Kepler did the harder job of abolishing the greek "godly" circle and took an ellipse instead. Kepler was the original guy. Kepler was the real free thinker. His choice for the heliocentrism sprung from his neoplatonic beliefs indeed but he didn't chose Bruno, he chose Copernicus (Copernicus was an astronomer. Being neoplatonist and searching for an ultimate elegance he abandoned the complicated Ptolemeic model and resolved it through heliocentrism.). The measurements and the study however were his own or Brahe's (an amazing astronomer of his times and he was no heliocentrist!). And since Kepler, regarding solar system, everyone refered to him, not to Bruno.

I agree on that. But he's not the only one killed for his beliefs. Anyway, I will gladly grant Bruno a place in such a history and remove him from the history of science (well, maybe not remove, but at least place him on a footnote somewhere).

This I can't locate exactly, but it's a common feature in pantheistic philsophies to annul life and death. When the entire universe is a giant organism then such view is quite natural.

Cusanus

Lafcadio

Straw man. You claimed that "every x is y". If I found counterexamples it doesnt' follow I claimed "every x is not y". My claim is simple "some x are y" or "some x are not y".

I notice your position here slightly changed. You previously said "Every advance, scientific or technologic, was made against the Church" now you say "Catholic Church was the main obstacle to science". Until you decide what's your actual idea you're debating with me I will answer to your latter. Descartes and Gassendi did science in France in about the same period. That not to talk of "proto-scientists" like Nicole Oresme when Catholic Church was much stronger.

Just great - minimalizing at all costs. Do the authors have any proofs of what where the daily preoccupations of the English clergy?

I was talking seriously. If you claim no astronomy was done during whatever you call Dark Ages (what territory, from when to when?) please back up your claim. My claims were a) an educated european astronomer had knowledge of Arabic and Greek astronomy and b) the cult of saints in Christendom has certain restrictions easily observable.

Buridan

Several good points, Lafcadio.

One issue though
Ahem, remember, this was under Richeliu and Mazarin :wave:

spin

He almost certainly didn't study the sky: he was a philosopher, a philosopher who advocated the copernican solar system and theorized multiple star systems with multiple worlds.

Oh, don't continue this stuff. You're just repeating anti-Bruno revisionism. The church likes to slag Bruno because he wouldn't buckle to it. He showed it to be in his time a small-minded ugly organization which would truck no independent thought and was prepared to find reason to kill anyone who dared to think for themselves.

So you and Bede and the church don't like Bruno. Hey, what's new?

The subject is why Bruno died: his advocacy of the Copernican system was cited in his troubles with the church -- as it was with Galileo.

Both Kepler and Galileo knew of Bruno and in that day didn't say anything against him, ie they said what they could.

You have simply repackaged the importance from Bruno's choice to die for the right to think for oneself to dying for what one believes in. You miss the point.


spin

Buridan

Then, could you please stop just stating your "opinions" and point to a modern scholarly study or a Historian of Science that supports your anti-anti Bruno views, e.g. showing than Bruno really was doing something one in a meaningfull way could call science

Lafcadio

Yes, he advocated the copernican solar system, but this is was not what I argued against but against 'science' and 'scientific' with regard to Bruno's work. In the link presented by Buridan there's a mention of an english astronomer, Thomas Digges, who holds about the same idea as Bruno (to reissue a question I already asked: how many do know about this guy and how many about Bruno?), but he publishes it before him(!) and supports the Copernican solar system but including the model, too. While Bruno shows an eclectic cosmology encapsulating various concepts from own formative lectures. I slowly revealed that a significant majority of his ideas were not his. What was left for him to theorize? Shouldn't we say compile?

Revisionism? What's your reference? The site from OP? Yeah, if the site from OP is mainstream, I'm glad to be a revisionist. There are many historiographies who do not overemphasize Bruno.
I haven't found a single counter-argument here against the factoids I mentioned about Bruno. Nor an argument for Bruno as a scientist or as an advocate of science or scientific advancement. These are big words. You want him as a victim of Inquisiton and even as a philosopher? You have it. Put him in his right place in history and I'm fine with it!

I don't think anyone discussed so far what was Church's problem with Bruno. If you have a problem with it, just open the issue.

Guilt by association? Come on, spin, I know you can do more than that. We could manage to exchange few replies with no ad hominems and now you start?
Now let's get to your hazardous claim: how did you reach your conclusion that I don't like Bruno? Did I say: Bruno is ugly (like you said about Church)? Did I say: Bruno is stupid or small-minded (like you said about Church)? No. I am presenting some factoids and draw a reasonable conclusion. Bruno is overrated. If you disagree show me the counterarguments and not accuse me of complicity with some 16th century Church just because you don't agree with my position and eventually my argumentation could help one fundie one day. I'm not into atheists vs fundies game. I can agree with one, with another or disagree with both. In this thread I questioned also Bede also his opponents, but I haven't received replies from all. Tough luck - I'm talking with the ones willing to talk and those seem to be Bede's opponents. From here to complicity is a long way and I really don't want to derail this thread through ad hominems. So just stick to the arguments.

False. The eight heads of accusation brought to him in 1599 are unknown. Can you prove that if Bruno's single guilt was his Copernican view he would have been burnt for it? If no, then thank you and let's leave it as a speculation, as a "what if" you support.
Galileo is another case. We can talk about him, too, with pros and cons.

Compassion and pragmatism do not make for scientific advancement. Is not like Galilei would have scientifically backed up Bruno when he didn't even had his telescope (and even when he had it, his methods of argumentation could have make Bruno's case worse than it looked). Nor Kepler his studies ready. They just minded their own business, like most people do. Bruno died for his own ideas. Why would Kepler or Galilei die for Bruno's or endanger themselves (it was the Italian Inquisition having Bruno on trial, wasn't it?)?
And how is your comment related to Kepler's real role in developing a scientific advancement in astronomy unlike Bruno's?

Human rights didn't exist in 16th century. And Bruno did't defend himself through a "freedom of thought" argument. Let's not load history with modern conotations we don't have proofs for. Bruno died for his belief, this is the only fact we have at hand. I cannot agree with more while lacking proofs. The accusation of "repackaging" is groundless.

Lafcadio

Yeah, now that you mention it, I realize there was a contextual open-mindedness. Still I was looking for pre-Voltairean counterexamples, as my opponent claimed that in France before Voltaire science was a hard thing to do.
Thank you for the intervention, though. Your point is valid.

spin

I'm not too interested in the lack of practical experience of Bruno. He wasn't a scientist himself. I'm more interested in the fact that he spoke out advocating a scientific position, ie the copernican system augmented by his own thought on the matter.

Bruno got it right. Digges didn't.

You really would like to revise the guy. Rewrite him to be more accommodating for some reason.

Rework the image of Bruno to whatever it is you advocate about him.

There are far too many people ready to rubbish Bruno. They won't go down for their own right to independent thought. Bruno is a challenge.

Your factoids??? Hey, you can paint him however you like. The guy is dead. His statue now stands over Piazza Campo de' Fiori. It's his piazza now. Your revisionism of Bruno seems wasted. The man will survive you (and me).

He is not in himself a scientist. He is a 16th century philosopher and an advocate of the copernican system with his own extensions.

The church is apparently not the only source of lack of appreciation of Bruno.

Generic fact. If you don't like the company, you could change your opinion.

Oh, I don't find much value in your factoids.

You're extrapolating.

OK, argue something.

I've already dealt with the single guilt stuff. The church gets you for heresy one way or another. The don'r get you for supporting a scientific position. That's just what gets you into trouble. And that's the declaration he made before the holy office in Venice shows part of his side of the conflict and he starts his defiant declaration: "I hold that the universe is infinite." ("Io tengo un infinito universo...")

Nice, but for me irrelevant.

Umm, who at the time of Bruno had a telescope??

Bruno argued against celestial spheres, a position Brahe would come to argue as well. And you know the connection between Kepler and Brahe.

Bruno meddled in a lot of different things. That was part of his nature. Telling him what he should be dealing with is telling him what to think, ie sattempting to take away his freedom to think. This is not a particularly difficult idea. It doesn't deal with universal notions of rights but the man's individual approach to the world. He didn't give the church what they wanted, unlike Galileo, ie the acknowledgment that they ultimately had control of him. He was offered the choice that Galileo accepted. He refused.

Let's look at the reality and not revise the man to conform to your deforming lens.

What belief exactly is it that you think he died for? -- if it's not his own assumed right to think what he wanted to think...


spin