geo wrote:So let me get this straight, Stahrwe has a beef that Cosmos’ producers are playing up Bruno as a martyr for science when, in fact, he was imprisoned for seven years and finally branded as a heretic and burned at the stake NOT because of his cosmology, per se, but because of :

1) involvement with occult practices
2) his denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ
3) and his denial of the Trinity.

Thanks for the clarification!

The Inquisition is always getting a bum rap.

And Ant has a problem with Cosmos because of an article that he read from a web site called “Zap 2 It”. He didn’t actually watch the show and, in fact, doesn’t watch TV at all.

Brilliant!

What does this nonsense have to do with Tyson's shoddy history?
Try to add some substance to the conversation instead of harping on about the name of a website.

Geez

deleted

Even "Cosmos" points out that Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess," says Tyson. So why is the long-dead philosopher important enough to rate hero status? That would be because "Cosmos" takes his case as one of "martyrdom."

That's right. Even Tyson says Bruno's hypothesizing was a "lucky guess"
Luck and guess work are totally antithetical to the practice of Science.

But every brand of religion needs its heroes and martyrs. That's how you move people emotionally. That's how you begin indoctrination - by strong emotional appeals.

Stick to Science, COSMOS.
Stop with the shoddy history.
It's embarrassing obvious what's being attempted here.

Let's watch the martyrs of science raise their hands up to the heavens and ascend!!

ant wrote:So why is the long-dead philosopher important enough to rate hero status?

For what it’s worth, I watched the first episode of Cosmos and thought the Bruno sequence was a bit long and even kind of strange. But the notion of Bruno as "hero" is a strawman. Who says he was? Tyson uses the tragic story of Bruno as an illustration of how limited our worldview was until this point. Here's a guy, Bruno, crazy enough to “think different” and stick to his guns through seven years of trial and imprisonment. In the end they burned him at the stake for his ideas. Anyway, the Inquisition was out to brand heretics and if they have to throw in a little sorcery to make the charges stick, so be it. The stated reasons they came up for burning people alive aren’t really relevant, are they?

Even Wikipedia says: “scholars note that Bruno's ideas about the universe played a small role in his trial compared to his pantheist beliefs, which differed from the interpretations and scope of God held by the Catholic Church." So his ideas conflicted with the Church and turns out Bruno was (probably) right about an infinite universe, and multiple worlds and all that stuff that got him into so much trouble with the Church. How is that not a conflict between science and the Church?

So, sorry, you guys are splitting hairs. I personally found there to be other areas of weakness in the show, but who cares?

There's one scene where Bruno is having a dream and he approaches a dome with all the stars on it (representing the cosmological view of the time), and he lifts it up like it’s a curtain to reveal the infinite universe in all of its glory. I actually thought that was a pretty cool way to illustrate the clash of world views. And this is the point that some people are falling all over themselves trying to miss.

The calendar was pretty cool too.

Edit: Didn't Tyson state outright that Bruno's ideas weren't scientific, they were philosophical? But as we have discussed on this forum many times, that's where science always starts—in philosophy. To dismiss Bruno's role in science simply because he wasn't a scientist is a nonstarter out of the gate.

Giordano Bruno is discussed at length in a wonderful book, The Forbidden Universe by Picknett and Prince. The theme of the book is how the Renaissance rediscovered ancient scientific methods, and how these methods, embedded within Hermetic philosophy, enabled the scientific revolution.

It is great that Cosmos recognises this history, and celebrates those who have been murdered by tyrants for bearing witness to the truth.

For our resident fundy clowns to denigrate Bruno because he offended the Inquisition regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary is more than amusing.

Robert Tulip wrote:Giordano Bruno is discussed at length in a wonderful book, The Forbidden Universe by Picknett and Prince. The theme of the book is how the Renaissance rediscovered ancient scientific methods, and how these methods, embedded within Hermetic philosophy, enabled the scientific revolution.

It is great that Cosmos recognises this history, and celebrates those who have been murdered by tyrants for bearing witness to the truth.

For our resident fundy clowns to denigrate Bruno because he offended the Inquisition regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary is more than amusing.

It's brutally dishonest to claim the church was against Bruno's "lucky guess" scientific "work" when in fact they didn't give a rat's ass about it.
Bruno's scientific position (if that's what you want to call it) wasn't against the church's scientific position because the church didn't even have a formal position stated at the time.
What don't you understand about this?

It was Bruno's theological position the church rose up against. There's a big effin difference here. Stop playing stupid here for the sake of martyr creation. It's transparent and dumb of you.

Also, can you direct us to a historical transcript of Bruno's trial?
Does one exist to back your claim that the evil church was against Bruno's "science" specifically?
How does this all help our understanding of science and Cosmos' efforts to bring SCIENCE into our living rooms?

Wow! You're quite the scientific zealot, Robert.
You have your own brand of Inquisition going on here

To dismiss Bruno's role in science simply because he wasn't a scientist is a nonstarter out of the gate.

What role?? His "lucky guess" work, as NDT pointed out himself?

Since when in the hell is "lucky guess work" a part of science.
That's ludicrous, Geo.
Why are you going out of you way to lie to your self?

Bruno wasn't practicing science nor was he philosophizing about it.
His theological positions were many. He had a lucky guess mixed in with many other theological considerations that could be justifiably called wacky.

What's really astounding here is just how gullible most of you are being here.
It's truly astounding for such an "educated" group of people.
It boggles my mind.

ant wrote:

To dismiss Bruno's role in science simply because he wasn't a scientist is a nonstarter out of the gate.

What role?? His "lucky guess" work, as NDT pointed out himself?

Since when in the hell is "lucky guess work" a part of science.
That's ludicrous, Geo.
Why are you going out of you way to lie to your self?

Bruno wasn't practicing science nor was he philosophizing about it.
His theological positions were many. He had a lucky guess mixed in with many other theological considerations that could be justifiably called wacky.

So I guess I'm missing your point, Ant. What am I so gullible about?

The views on Bruno aren't exactly black and white, but it's clear that Giordano Bruno was tried for heresy for ideas that clashed with the religious hegemony at the time. This is all fact. What exactly is your problem with this? What did the show get wrong exactly?

Much of science is the result of serendipity. Guesswork. Happy accidents. I believe you yourself have pointed out the value of intuition, especially in science. For all I know Bruno was a genius who was ahead of his time. Do you know something I don't? I mean, you didn't even see the show. Doesn't that sort of shoot your credibility?

Your reaction is all pathos, my friend. There's no ethos, no logos, no argument.

ant wrote:It was Bruno's theological position the church rose up against.

Yes, that is right. Bruno's position was that theology should be based on the scientific methods of reason and evidence, whereas the church "rose up against Bruno" in defence of its view that theology should be based on tradition and authority.

The church view of scientific method was and remains among the greatest historic sources of stagnation, corruption, poverty, ignorance, deception, deference and stupidity.

That is why Bruno is celebrated as a champion of scientific method, and why the resolutely irrational ant is so concerned to demonise Bruno, in the true church spirit of pure ignorance.