Bede

Spin, it's quite clear from your previous post, that what you want is a martyr. For my part, you are welcome to Bruno.

Best wishes

Bede

Lafcadio

Kepler's laws are reasonable, scientific and original (elliptic orbits!!! OMG, no longer Aristotelic circles!). Kepler's among few europeans of his time who dared not to be Greek. Kepler's among the first ones who stepped firmly down from the shoulders of giants.
I see above a whining about Kepler holding some Greek concepts while Bruno didn't. It's utter ignorance to not know that the infinite universe comes also from Greek world (as it was shown some time ago in this thread, too). It's utter ignorance to realize that the neoplatonist philosophy Bruno subscribed to it's not rooted deep into the Greek thought.
All what was denied to Bruno was originality, reason (or science, but I hope no one would go that far to claim that!!!) and advocacy of science.
Kepler unlike Bruno held little opinions about things he couldn't prove. That's why Kepler is a scientist, an advocate of science and a reasonable person while Bruno cannot be none of that.

Post hoc arguments are fallacies. Arguments from future are fallacies. Those that cannot see Bruno through the lenses of his own time should shut up. Unfortunately freedom of speach means also freedom of stupidity.

Romans gave people bread and circus. Bread we have but circus is still needed. So give people their martyrs so they can enjoy their own lives!

spin

Hello. Lacfadio is trying to argue something, is he!?
Platonic solids indeed. Hilarious. How could anybody take up such a silly point of view. :rolling:

An astrologer. :notworthy



Kepler can stand on the shoulders of giants, despite Lacfadio's claim to the contrary, but Bruno can't. :wave:

When Bruno advocates multiple star systems and multiple worlds, he is accused of standing on the shoulders of giants?? :huh:

For this repetition see my previous comment.

"All what was denied to Bruno" in its passive requires a subject for the denial and that is Lacfadio. He has denied things a lot. No sufficient cause. Just his dislike of Bruno. Bruno gets under his skin. Why doesn't he like Bruno? He knows little about him.

Kepler wrote books about his positive views of platonic solids to explain the universe. Kepler was a big proponent of astrology -- a really scientific proposition, that one.

While I accept Kepler in his time. I find Lacfadio's position regarding Bruno unreasonable.

Hypocrites talk rubbish to justify hypocrisies.


Old Chinese fortune cookie say....


spin

Lafcadio

When you will be able to articulate an argument you'll receive a reply from me.

spin

I see nothing you are capable of saying but trite attacks. I don't want to encourage you.


spin

lpetrich

spin on Kepler ... let's put it this way, it's much like the excrement of the male bovine. A lot of his ideas look farfetched by present-day standards, but were they really much worse than (say) Bruno's? Yes, Bruno also believed in astrology.

And how much quantitative hypothesis testing had Bruno ever done? None that I know of. While Kepler's great discoveries involve exactly that.

He had indeed proposed that the relative spacings of the planets' orbits could fit the five Platonic regular solids.

Mercury
- Octahedron - 1.732 - 1.869
Venus
- Icosahedron - 1.258 - 1.382
Earth
- Dodecahedron - 1.258 - 1.524
Mars
- Tetrahedron - 3 - 3.415
Jupiter
- Cube - 1.732 - 1.836
Saturn

(solid, vertex/face-center distance ratio, actual distance ratio)

Notice that the numbers do not quite work out, and Kepler had the good sense to recognize that when he discovered that.

Kepler had more success with his three laws of planetary motion, however; these successes are what he's mainly remembered for. And he discovered his first law after repeatedly failing to fit Mars's orbit to a circle.


Exact values:
Tetrahedron: 3
Cube, Octahedron: sqrt(3)
Dodecahedron, Icosahedron: sqrt(3*(5-2*sqrt(5)))

Buridan

This from one who has based his case on things like using a language others don't understand...

And who furthermore is not able to realise the immeasurable difference between "Magicians" and "Mathematicians". This is about persons who are similiar to the degree that they all insist something based on their philosophy and more or less original ideas. However, they differ in that one group (non-scientists like Bruno) does not use experimental or mathematical tests, while the other group (scientists like Kepler) actually does check their views scientifically and change them accordingly.

I think I am not the only one left feeling a bit:huh:

spin

This is quite an interesting case of selective reading. Out of four passages I cited from Bruno one was not in translation. You happily ignore the three and show your lack of ability by concentrating on the one which is directly from Bruno.

You can feel however you like. The inconsistencies of those who irrationally attack Bruno are obvious. One will overlook what he says that is fundamentally correct and attack him for what he holds that is later shown to be incorrect. Then one will accept Kepler for those things he holds which are correct and overlook that which is later shown to be incorrect. Utter hypocrisy.

Now Kepler was a mathematician while Bruno was a philosopher. Kepler got his mathematics right at times, while Bruno got his philosophy right in the context of scientific theory at times. This was the end of the 16th century, there was a lot they could get wrong. Yet time and again people deny Bruno and his position in the history of science and ideas. This denial seems quite unjustified to me.


spin

Buridan

Not at all. I commented only on the fact that you base part of your case on quoting Bruno in Italian - without providing others the opportunity to think for themselves what this quotation say or mean. This is an argument from your own authority, and not one based on reason. Which is rather peculiar in this forum.

Quite the opposite. Your inability to realise the difference between having scientific grounds (willing to being tested by Mathematical models) for one's beliefs and having religious grounds (neither willing nor (seemingly) able to test them by Mathematical models) is extremely interesting to observe.

If nothing else it shows that you to be consistent must insist that any Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or whatever who happens, in a scientific debate, to hold strong religious opinions which are somewhat confirmed by later scientific findings, are to be praised as a defender of science.

Bruno was a stark defender of the relevance of his own religious views in the debates in the late 1500's. He was however never a stark defender of science.

spin

How can you understand Bruno if you can't read him??

I quote primary source material and you call this argument from my own authority?? You are joking.

If you even took a little time to look at the text he talks of an infinite universe in his declaration to the Venetian church representatives. Now with the knowledge that "mondi" means worlds, you can see that he talks about infinite worlds similar to Terra. These are things that he holds and considers worthy to say on his behalf to his captors.

You are insinuating "religious grounds" into Bruno's analysis of the universe. This is simple assertion and not worthy of consideration by itself.

Still belting your assertion. Forget it.

This doesn't reflect either his publications or his statements.


spin