Bobinius

Lafacdio, you made no argument, you made some poetry: the man who dared not to be Greek. He was embedded with Greek ideas, as I've clearly shown in the parts you failed to adress. If you did not get it, more examples can be provided. Although I don't think I'll my energy on that. Useless.

And you keep proving that your assertions are from ignorance.

Who discovered the Ellipse? Do a google. You can find interesting stuff.

The points are not made according to your ad-hoc modifications. You are not able to face the superficiality of your own claims: the man who dared not to be Greek. Right. Kepler managed to obtain the Laws that describe the planetary motion with the help of an idea from a Greek guy: Archimedes.

Kepler had the idea of trying to fit the orbit of Mars into an oval, which he successfully modified into an ellipse, with the same great axis as his oval. And it worked. No one is denying Kepler that. Just your unsupported ramblings on Greeks and shoulders.

There is no hierarchy of being in his thinking. That should be enough. Are you going to come with Cusanus again? That guy was absolutely incoherent. He forced some concepts to the limit of absurdity. The triangle which is a line would be one.

Do you have the idea that in Bruno's philosophy the universe is infinite because of God's almightiness and omnibenevolence? Did you read him in the Chinese edition?

Don't worry, the orbits of the planets don't work according to Pythagorean musical harmony. But your Double Standard is obvious of course. Kepler was no greek sir. Take a look at the ideas of your scientist:

Back to Bruno:

For example, the Cosmological Principle in Astronomy is consistent with Bruno's ideas about the structure of the Universe: isotropy and homogeny.

Also the framework in which he projects his Cosmology is consistent with the Principle of Relativity(not the einsteinian) in Physics:

He also regards the Universe as a closed system, which is a principle without which we cannot do any Astrophysc as Lee Smolin says, in the beggining of his book 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity'.

His visionary ideas are more remarcable considering that all he had was thought experiments and analysis.

You have a fixed idea about Bruno (a sign that the Catholic church did its job) and you are refractary to anything presented. Is that rational?

I already pointed out Kepler's weird ideas, for which he had no evidence. Ignoring them won't change anything. He wrote a few books on his 'little opinions'. See? Refractariness and emotionalism.

Here's more:

Zodiac Guru.

You are going to love this. This is where Bruno's pantheism and Kepler meet.

Could it be? The european, the rational, scientific mind? An animist?

Cut the crap with sending people to do your work. It's always the other who has to prove the negative. Also, Kepler was talking like that about the Astrology performed by the idiots of his days. He was trying to bring the best in Astrology.

What you have to understand is that Kepler was not the perfect and pure scientist you are wanting him to be. He had excellent ideas, like the ones you missed: he foresaw Gravity, but did not took the idea too far, and also weird ones and metaphysical junk.

Kepler made calculations using Tycho Brache's data. Read it until it sinks in.

Bruno argued for the Copernican system out loud, starting in Oxford, England. Get used to it.

Just a small problem for your powerfull intellect: Why was not Cusanus convicted or even accused of heresy for the same ideas as Bruno? Where they not identical?

I am not interested about your recent discoveries about time.

But, tell everyone here more about this Argument from the Future. What is it and when did you discover it? Are you going to publish?

Lafcadio

(*) I suspect the capital 'P' is wrong and it's an interrupted sentence. It makes more sense to me.

Lafcadio

Spin, thank you for your translation. I will appreciate if you'd comment on mine and improve it and deliver a better (more accurate but also more literary) version.
Your attempts to make arguments are still pathetic and unsuccesful and show the same lack of knowledge, therefore unfortunately I can't reply.

I will however reply to Bobinius who's a freshman in this thread


Strawmaning is a severe disease in your case. Kepler was one among the few. The medieval scholars who thought the motion can be otherwise than uniform dared the same thing. But alas, I was talking about Bruno vs Kepler, not the entire history of Western thought. Stick a while, be constructive and we may get to those, too.

Let me give you a basic lesson on logic.
When I say "there's at least one X that is Y", no matter how many X you show there are not Y, you won't prove a thing. The strawman I accuse you is that you actually think you make a counterargument with such replies.

Straw man again. I haven't credit him for inventing the ellipse. Why don't you read what exactly Kepler did and did not, and then see what I've ment, and afterwards, if you have anything left to comment, please bring it on.

Edit I said "Kepler's among few europeans of his time who dared not to be Greek.". So the only ad-hoc modification is yours and it's called strawman. You're disqualifying yourself from this discussion much faster than I've imagined.

It's not my fault that you have no idea of the metaphor of Bernard of Chartres and of guys like John Hooke playing around this metaphor. Your ignorance is not an argument. Read!

What?? Why don't you actually read Bruno and Cusanus and Greek philosophy and then come again. Do not rush with a response, you have much to read.

There're Bruno words on this page in the translation of me and spin. Please read them and then dare to talk about what Bruno held or held not.

Einstein claimed some crazy things too. Again you don't know basic logic. Principle is above, the modeling is a bit different. If one guy is a scientist because he P, you can whine all your want bringing other situations, it won't change the conclusion.

Back to science.
Assertion is not science. Bruno could guess the number of chromozomes, with no scientific method at hand he fails the criteria. Kepler is not in the history of science for the great truths he claimed, but for his method and for actually putting a brick there. Nobody used Bruno's claim to prove anything scientific. But several used Kepler's.
Make Bruno a martyr of free thought, continuing one of spin's earlier rants. You will have a much better chance than making him one of science.

Non sequitur. It's true I have a fixed idea about Bruno but the reason is different. I still have the same premises. It's rational that from the same premises to draw the same conclusion. It's irrational to think otherwise. Now invalidate my premises and bring new ones and maybe my ideas will change.

Dude, not everyone disagreeing with you is emotional and reluctant. You may have simply stated some Edit things. Like pointing Kepler's weird ideas will make him less of a scientist. You could similarily point weird ideas of Newton or Einstein. You'll just prove yourself (eventually a skillful) slime thrower.
My point is that nothing of what Bruno held is scientific. That's why I can label him somehow. Your point is that some of what other guy (let's call him Kepler) held is unscientific. Your points proves nothing and trying to make it so, will only drag you into the irrationality's corner.

It's not the other, it's you. I already discussed in this thread, it's not my fault you came in when the party's over.

Arguments from thin air. You even don't know the quote and you have found an explanation. Unfortunately it doesn't compare two astrologies but astrology with astronomy. Strawmen are so obvious in a forum when all remains written.

"Foresaw" = this says all about your view of science. Arguments from future, fallacies, game over!

Yeah, and he also had an amnesia and forgot his own observations, like the ones he did when he was at Tubingen

I really don't understand this idiosyncrasy. Your problem is that I missed "Oxford" or "out loud"?

What about the principle of parsimony (though you don't have a clue what science is, it's a pretty large expectation to have you considering this principle)? What about not living in the same time and place as a primary reason to stop making stupid comparisions?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...ts.html#future

Lafcadio

I saw above spin claiming that Bruno held scientific views and freigeister claiming Bruno's doctrine was scientific.

Please step forward and prove your point. If you'll succeed all the quarrel will dissolve in one second.
Do not forget to include a definition of "scientific" (even in the sense of "soft science" mentioned by freigeister)

I just had a quick glance on spin's translation and so far I found this inaccuracy: "indegna" = "unworthy" not "worthy". The phrase also doesn't make sense with the word "worthy". The god being able to create the infinite, is worthy for him to create the finite??

Buridan

Not quite sure about whose intellect has most power here? There are several options for persons with intellect to ponder, e.g.:

1: Bruno was not accused for the ideas he held in common with Cusanus (or a belief in an infinite universe was not sufficiently serious by itself)

2: Things had changed so that the Church - for other reasons than Theology - suddenly started to accuse Bruno for beliefs they earlier would not have accused anyone for

3: Cusanus did not hold the same ideas as Bruno

To decide which of these, or possible quite another, alternatives to go for, one needs to find documentations of what Bruno was condemned for. And for the beliefs of Cusanus.

Ciao :Cheeky:

Buridan

If you are so certain about this, why don't you document it?

So far there have not been any reference in this tread to historical sources that show that the "notion of an infinite universe and of multiple worlds", was the most important, or the "essence" of the ideas for which he was condemned.

If the sources are in Italian, please translate.

Ciao:Cheeky:

Diogenes the Cynic

Please remember that personal insults are not permitted in this forum. Arguments are fair game for attacks, other posters are not. Let us refrain from calling other users "stupid" or from making insinuations about their mental health. Thank you.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H.

Bobinius

There is no strawman dude. Another ad-hoc modification on your part to unfalsify your case. Now it's Kepler vs. Bruno, when it was Kepler and the europeans of his time.

Kepler's among few europeans of his time who dared not to be Greek.

Kepler was permeated with Greek ideology. He arrived at his findings not driven by some naturalistic view of the Universe, but by Pythagorean mystical motivations and theological feelings. Greek in those days ment Aristotle. And if that is a prize, Bruno was too against Aristotle's view. This is not the difference between them. So get over your superficial verse, it's not proving anything.

Keep your lessons for yourself. You blew it with your verse. Get over it. The fact that an eliptical orbit could describe the data has nothing to do with his intellectual greekness. Maybe Aristotleness. But his dogma was already shaken by Copernicus. No one is saying that Kepler was not a good mathematician. He discovered a geometrical relationship that was consistent with the observations of Tycho. No one is saying that this discovery was minor. You said that X is not Y. All one has to do is how that there is an X that is Y in order to falsify your baloney.

This is what you wrote. Your fallacious defense is amazing.

How is any of your objections showing that an ellipse was a Greek concept?

The ellipse is a Greek concept. Used more than one thousand and a half years before Kepler.

<edit for consistency>

Ho ho. This is a good one. This metaphor was really misplaced by your genial style, and that's what I objected to. It seems you have no idea who formulated it.

It seems that Kepler stepped down from his own shoulders. :wave:

Lafcadio: Kepler's among the first ones who stepped firmly down from the shoulders of giants.

You bring a lot of involuntary humour to this thread. :thumbs:

*PS: It is a famous and overused metaphor. Even Stephen Hawking has a book with it on its cover. But some people have no idea how to apply it.

Bruno had influences. Can you grasp the meaning of that? Lucretius has influenced him. Lucretius has influenced Cusanus. Epicurus has influenced Lucretius. Democritus too. And so on. Plotinus influenced Bruno too. Plato too. What the fuck is your problem with that?

As spin said: people take it out of context and forget it was written as a defense in front of the Inquisition. His philosophy is more complicated than that. Go read, as you say.

Irrelevant. (What did Einstein claim so crazy?). You can't figure that things were not so clear cut and that the music of the orbits is not the scientific method.

What was Kepler's method? Tell me. How did he arrived at his laws 'scientifically'? Describe the keplerian method of finding the correct orbits of celestial bodies.

Bruno was a martyr of free thought and of science. To defend Science you don't need to be a scientist.

Bruno was a philosopher. He defended the Copernican view. Your fixed and malformed ideas about the demarcation problem just show that you have no idea what that means. There are problems with the scientific character of the Copernican model. There are problems with Galileo's defense of the Copernican model. But you have the idea that Kepler was suddenly a scientist. It was the middle of the Scientific Revolution for chrissakes. It needed to grow up. Kepler's view was a mixture of things, some good some not.

You should calm down with your presumption of what people know and don't know. You embarassed yourself with the shoulders stuff enough.

Read this untill you get it:

Got it now? Or do you need a drawing? Kepler was talking about the Astrology perfomed by sharlatans, but he knew he had more to offer.

I used it with the meaning of 'anticipated'. :rolling: Game over...

Straw man heh? No one said he did not observe anything, his supernova included. Keep reading that phrase.

The stupid comparison is in your head only. Yeah, in Cusanus time's there was no Inquisition, he lived some hundreds of years before Bruno. Great. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were not identical?

And you are truely in no position of teaching anyone about Science. Spare me the autobiography.

That is your reference? That guy is making them up. Try here:http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm

I wonder if you could tell what kind of fallacy is this A. from Future (by Spielberg).

That guy is fallacious even in his criticism of fallacies.

This criticism is advocating the Argument Ad Numerum. It is irrelevant if many think it is proven. The question is : is the evidence proving it or not?

freigeister

I am involved in a discussion on this topic in this thread. Join the brawl!

Lafcadio

I can't help you understand if you're not willing. I said "I was talking about Bruno vs Kepler" which is true. I said I didn't talk about Western Europe's history of thought which is true. I also repeated what you quoted here "Kepler's among few europeans of his time who dared not to be Greek." as "Kepler was one among the few." and also down in the message the entire quote.

Can you present the Pythagorean mystical motivation and theological feelings behind his three laws?


Copernicus theory originated also in the ancient Greek world for what's worth.

of Tycho and himself.

<edit>

and consequently fight strawmen.


Straw man! We were talking of the model of the solar system, not of geometry. You can point out even to an Egyptian hieroglyph, you won't make a point.

You can't face your faults and shoot the messenger.

Bernard of Chartres formulated it in 12th century.

<edit>That it's not the original quote but a paraphrase.
http://www.kolel.org/pages/reb_on_th...shoulders.html
http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/Calin1a.html
http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02410.htm
Just look for shoulders+giants+Bernard+Chartres and eventually add Hooke, Newton and others to find how the paraphrase evolved. Better would be to actually grab a book about the history of Western thought but I already adviced you that and it seemed it was too much to ask. Google is your best source of knowledge, at least use it properly!

<edit> The giants = the ancients = the Greeks. In 12th century the Western monks were still paying tribute to Greeks and said little else. During 17th century, people already started to acknowledge that they went further way based on the Greek heritage. My point was that some of them became the giants, i.e. kept others on their shoulders.

Yeah, it's famous and overused. But ignorance of the average Joe reading cheap novels and documenting from encyclopaedias (which in themselves are not sources of great wisdom) without knowing exactly what he's looking for makes this metaphor being not properly understood.

Nonsense, this was not my point and you're avoiding the argument. I sent you to read both Bruno and Cusanus to review what you said about both.

Sure it is, read his work and see why the universe is infinite. You will be amazed about a similar argument. Maybe spin will be so kind to provide us a quote in Italian

For instance, you can read Einstein's The World As I See It, a book full of not scientific claims.

First, you could try to see what New Astronomy and The Harmony of the World say, though they are hard books to be read. Second, let me tell you how he started to build his orbits (the orbit of Mars, a planet he observed by himself at Tubingen). By small triangles pointing to the sun having the base edge as the interval between two observations. See? It's a mystical, theological method of determining an orbit from observations. He also tries different shapes to describe the orbit he calculates. He attempts with various circles and ellipses and refutes them. He even admits that the ellipses he obtains are not the exact shape, but that the differences are so small that are insignificant.

You can't defend an idea you don't understand it. You can defend it's name, but what's in a name, would a Romeo ask? You'll get to my t-shirt parody. Every Einstein T-shirt wearer is a staunch advocate to science, no matter that he barely can count his pocket money.

Bla, bla. This was said so many times in this thread and never dismissed.

It seems you have little knowledge of what natural philosophy means. This was the science we talk about in 17th century.

Kepler's view contained things which are scientific (natural philosophy, I will use this term to stop confusing you) and things which aren't. Some do not invalidate the others.

Really? What about the shoulders of giants? Tell me about it. (not here, read above and dig your head into sand)

Amazingly how you snipped out exactly the quote I evocated (probably it didn't fit your argument so well).
"But dear Lord, what would happen to her mother, the highly reasonable Astronomy, if she did not have this foolish daughter. The world, after all, is much more foolish, indeed is so foolish, that this old sensible mother, Astronomy, is talked into things and lied to as a result of her daughter's foolish pranks...The mathematician's pay would be so low, that the mother would starve, if the daughter did not earn anything "
So he talks about the astrology he practices, not about the astrology performed by sharlatans, as you insinuate.

This is exactly what argument from future is about. Bruno Nolandamus presentes .... The Prophecy :rolling:

Brahe studied that nova in 1572. What are you talking about?

If your reality is so simple, who am I to complicate it? Keep your rhetoric for yourself. This is your pattern of thinking and I'm not following it.

I'm not teaching you, I'm teasing you and tell you to read. You should learn from books, not from me.

I haven't talked about me. <edit>
Just google better. You will find several guys who make up such fallacies.
Talking about sites and fallacies, appeal to authority is not listed in that site? Oh well, how could you ever argue that what's on that site is teh list :Cheeky:

It doesn't say many but everyone. Everyone but the one in question.
For argument's sake just prove the Earth is not flat. When you'll realize you can't do it, you'll understand that inter-subjectivity (in science such a thing is hidden under peer-review) matters a lot.