the 'logical' conclusion is that COSMOS included the Bruno episode as an attack on the Church.

Could it be the first time the idea of a limitless cosmos was proposed? Isn't that Bruno's contribution, above and beyond his peers in that time?

Attacking the church is simply a bonus!

Interbane wrote:

the 'logical' conclusion is that COSMOS included the Bruno episode as an attack on the Church.

Could it be the first time the idea of a limitless cosmos was proposed? Isn't that Bruno's contribution, above and beyond his peers in that time?

Attacking the church is simply a bonus!

Actually there were other men at the time who held beliefs different than the orthodoxy at the time:

Copernicus, Kepler, Stigliola, Digges, Maestlin, Rothmann, and Brahe.

Cosmos and NDT start the Bruno tale with a complete falsehood:

“1599 everyone knew the sun, planets and stars were just lights in sky revolving around the earth.” It was “a universe made for us.” And “there was only one man who envisioned an infinitely grand cosmos.”

The above is simply false.
All the men I've listed above were alive while Bruno was busy making enemies and burning bridges. There wasn't just ONE man who envisioned a grand cosmos.
NONE of the aforementioned men were pursued by the Inquisition for holding views contrary to the most common held at the time.

NDT goes on to say:

“How was [Bruno] spending New Year’s Eve [in 1599]? In prison, of course.”

Yes - for reasons different from what Cosmos claims.
The depiction of an innocent looking Bruno confronted by the fire-eyed villains of the Church propaganda:

"The church hates smart people"
"The church arrested a peaceful man who dared read material the Church considered evil!

Bruno was at odds with most everyone that came into his circle. There's reasonable speculation that learned men who knew of him remained distant because of his black-belt in making enemies.
Bruno was a well-known heretic.

Cosmos AND NDT could have easily googled Bruno's history.
Rather than select other men more worthy of the same recognition that were REAL SCIENTISTS at the time,, they chose Bruno.
It's not hard to understand why.

As to a thought police discouraging freedom of thought?
Well, tell that to the prestigious universities at the time and their intellectual students.
It would be interesting bringing them all back from the dead to ask them - "Did anyone keep you from thinking freely while you were at university?"

I think I'll write Cosmos to tell them about a grand new invention - Google.

A "science" show getting it this wrong AND cartooning Bruno into a peaceful looking guy as much as it did is inexcusable.

The science part of the show was great though.

“1599 everyone knew the sun, planets and stars were just lights in sky revolving around the earth.” It was “a universe made for us.” And “there was only one man who envisioned an infinitely grand cosmos.”

The above is simply false.

Right, Erastothenes in ancient Greece had different ideas. What I meant was, Bruno's conceptualization was more than merely heliocentric, wasn't it? The first famous conceptualization of an infinite or near-infinite cosmos is a good starting point for this series.

A "science" show getting it this wrong AND cartooning Bruno into a peaceful looking guy as much as it did is inexcusable.

Am I wrong to excuse them then? I mean, if portraying an historical figure from centuries ago as having a different disposition from what he really had is 'inexcusable', then a ton of historical documentaries are guilty of inexcusable offenses. Even getting a date wrong is excusable in my book. But I'm not the scholar that you are, with your celestial standards.

I never claimed I was a scholar.
You're obviously trying to provoke a snarky comment from me.
I guess that's what a moderator's job is.

Here it goes then: OPEN SEASON:

Yes, you are wrong for excusing shoddy historical reporting by a brilliant scientist and a mega production company. Unless of course your standards are different for things you'll give a pass to for the sake of promoting falsehoods for propaganda.
We all know what your "vested interest" in the future is - to create a utopia without religion!

Behold!! The first step is complete!!
BAD BAD CHURCH PEOPLE!!
GOOD GOOD poor, innocent monk scientist Bruno! He was burned at the stake for being a scientist!
Everyone in his time recognized his scientific brilliance!!

Youre also wrong if you value intellectual honesty.

This isn't just a question of Cosmos getting someone's "disposition" wrong. It's the picture they painted of Bruno, verbally AND visually (right! he was sooo innocent looking! And the Church guys look sooooo evil!!)

Right. Cosmos was limited to guess work about something that happened centuries ago!
I mean, Google wasn't invented yet before Cosmos was produced!!

The show include one brief reference to religious heresies Bruno was convicted of at the end of the segment on Bruno. If the show was being fair the time ratio should have been reversed. The religious heresies Bruno was involved with would have been focused on with only an aside mention of the science.

Since the discussion is devolving to a focus on a few points let me expand the criticism of the premier of COSMOS 2014.

1) NDT incorrectly stated that Uranus was unknown to the ancients. That is NOT correct. The ancients knew of Uranus but did not classify it as a planet.

2) The representation f the asteroid belt was grossly exaggerated. It was all about the visual instead of Science.

the ancient greeks knew exactly what to do with uranus.

ba-bump bump, KISH!

Since some are focused Bruno, I decided to fact check NDT/COSMOS on something which could be checked. It is unfortunate that records about Bruno's trial were destroyed but that is not true about his time in England. That time was referenced in COSMOS and the 'truth' once again is different than presented in the show.

What is relevant is the corollary assumption that Bruno was in possession ofadvanced views on cosmology by the time he arrived in England and that his profound and daring teaching was lost on audiences who were unqualied to appreciate it.The truth is,as we shall see below,that in 1583 Bruno was only beginning to formulate his natural philosophy,and the reputation he had hitherto garnered was that of an expert in mnemonics with unsettled religious views.Thus,his audience had little reason to take his rather abstruse mixture ofcosmological,metaphysical,and magical ideas as the harbinger ofa profoundly new natural philosophy—especially in view ofhis contemptuous attitude toward mathematics and astronomy and his unacknowledged borrowings from other authors.Upon his arrival in England,in fact,insofar as cosmology and natural philosophy were concerned,Bruno was as much a learner as he was a teacher,something that his haughty rhetoric tends to obscure.Bruno’s famed rhetoric—which portrays himselfas the sole bearer ofenlightenment and wisdom,and anyone who fails to comprehend (and admire) him as both a pedant and an enemy oftruth—is long overdue for thorough scrutiny.

Giordano Bruno in England, Revisited
Mordechai Feingold
Huntington Library Quarterly
Vol. 67, No. 3 (September 2004) (pp. 329-346)

I am tempted to end this with QED as far as COSMOS being untrustworthy, at least with respect to Bruno, but there is much more in the article which shreds the COSMOS show's presentation and I think the Group will take this on as a project.

Yes, you are wrong for excusing shoddy historical reporting by a brilliant scientist and a mega production company.

I don't know about excusing the production company, you're right. If you have the resources, do your homework. They should have historians on staff. I'll excuse NDT though, he's not an historian as far as I know.

I am tempted to end this with QED as far as COSMOS being untrustworthy, at least with respect to Bruno, but there is much more in the article which shreds the COSMOS show's presentation and I think the Group will take this on as a project.

I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes. The world will be a better place for your efforts.

stahrwe wrote:The show include one brief reference to religious heresies Bruno was convicted of at the end of the segment on Bruno. If the show was being fair the time ratio should have been reversed. The religious heresies Bruno was involved with would have been focused on with only an aside mention of the science.

No. Again, no matter how much we'd like to spin-doctor it, and even though Cosmos gave the benefit of the doubt, we cannot know the reasons why Bruno was killed because the trial records have been lost.