Don't let the bullies wear you down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre says of Lemaitre "While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion."

Bruno's insight included the recognition that the consistency of truth means that science and religion must be reconcilable, and that any religious claims that conflict with science must be rejected or reinterpreted. So Lemaitre's view, like Gould's separate magisteria of science and religion, is illogical and indefensible except on political grounds of emotional comfort.

I suppose next ant will suggest that because Lemaitre was both a scientist and a catholic, therefore catholic dogma is true. The Big Bang Theory proves the Virgin Birth. That is the corollary of ant's mention of Lemaitre.

Robert Tulip wrote:Don't let the bullies wear you down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre says of Lemaitre "While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion."

Bruno's insight included the recognition that the consistency of truth means that science and religion must be reconcilable, and that any religious claims that conflict with science must be rejected or reinterpreted. So Lemaitre's view, like Gould's separate magisteria of science and religion, is illogical and indefensible except on political grounds of emotional comfort.

I suppose next ant will suggest that because Lemaitre was both a scientist and a catholic, therefore catholic dogma is true. The Big Bang Theory proves the Virgin Birth. That is the corollary of ant's mention of Lemaitre.

Of course he was pro non overlapping magisteria. So what?
That's not a clashing of worlviews. Actually that proves the point that a man of religion need not be in conflict with the practice of science. Whereas Bruno was a monk who's personal theology clashed with church doctrine.
Thanks for taking my side here, Tulip.

As to your last comment, that type of brute stupidity does not merit a response.
You're obviously the only virgin I know of.

ant wrote:As descriptions of natural phenomena, theorems are constantly "tweaked" to model phenomena that are never static.

Interbane's "Objective Anchor" gets blown out of the water.

Just because something is objective doesn't mean it must be static or even truthful. Your criteria for labeling something objective is misplaced. As long as referent does not change across subjects, it is objective. If it changes from subject to subject, it is subjective.

I think you missed my greater point in attempting to point out your pseudo-error. Whether or not the math is true, it describes reality in a different language. If you're to understand what hypotheses or theories mean(even if they are false), you must translate the language of math to the language of words. A useful tool in this translation is metaphor. Describing the big bang as an explosion or unfolding or whatever is all metaphor. We cannot put the actual event into words.

Just because something is objective doesn't mean it must be static or even truthful

Wiki

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject)

EDITED TO PLAY NICE:

More of Interbane's "Reality According To Interbane"

Just because something is objective, it does not mean it's even truthful.
What a crock.



If data as a referent is interpreted differently across various interpreters, then the descriptive language of said data has no objective value whatsoever.

I know what metaphorical language is for. Stop thinking youre instructing me here.

You were speaking of math as an "objective anchor"
In the truest sense, it can not be the anchor you want it to be if subjective subjects can AND DO interpret it many different ways.
Math comes from a subjective being. Are you saying the language of math applies everywhere and at all times?
I'd like to believe that, but what evidence do you have to support a claim like that?

ant wrote:Of course he was pro non overlapping magisteria. So what?

The depth of thickness within ant's comment here is truly unfathomable. The idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria is that science and religion constitute separate domains that do not overlap. It is immediately refuted as soon as religion makes any claim about reality, which is the domain of science. NOMA is not a logical theory, but a mere political contrivance to try to get idiot fundamentalists away from scientific debate, confining them to their proper domain of imaginary fantasy and fiction.

ant wrote:That's not a clashing of worlviews. Actually that proves the point that a man of religion need not be in conflict with the practice of science. Whereas Bruno was a monk who's personal theology clashed with church doctrine.

Lemaitre was culturally a Roman Catholic, and accepted the bifurcation of his brain between fantasy and fact required by dogma, using the fantasy side for religion and the fact side for science. Bruno held that such a schizoid church mentality is rationally indefensible, and was burnt for this view.

ant wrote: Thanks for taking my side here, Tulip.

No, I have not taken your side ant. You are attacking a great man of science in Bruno in order to justify your obscurantist false theories about God.

ant wrote: As to your last comment, that type of brute stupidity does not merit a response. You're obviously the only virgin I know of.

Lemaitre as a Catholic believed in the Virgin Birth. Ant says that Cosmos should celebrate Lemaitre as a saint. That means, logically, that ant thinks that Cosmos should defend all of Lemaitre's views, including the virgin birth. That is not brute stupidity on my part, it is simple logic illustrating how ant is applying inquisitorial methods to attack science.

It is superb that Cosmos recognises the political challenge facing science from obscure fools like ant. Cosmos makes no compromise in explaining that there is a scientific world view that conflicts with traditional religion. The scientific critique of religion is important, much as ant would like to censor it.

The depth of thickness within ant's comment here is truly unfathomable. The idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria is that science and religion constitute separate domains that do not overlap. It is immediately refuted as soon as religion makes any claim about reality

If Bruno was a religious man, which he most certainly was, and he made a claim about reality (which he did), then he violated NOMA, isn't that right?
Or, regardless of the violation, youre going to excuse it because it happened to be a lucky guess, unsupported by evidence.
Right?

Hypocrite

:giggle:

Robert Tulip wrote:Don't let the bullies wear you down.

The surrender flag only means I give up.

Ant seems to be assuming that science and theology were completely separate pursuits then (as they are today for the most part). But in the 1500s the distinction between the two was muddy at best. This was, after all, about a hundred years before Newton published his laws of motion. Science was in its infancy, and Bruno's proto-science ideas clearly clashed with the established Church-dominated worldview. So there was a clash between science and theology or at least as close as you're going to get during this time period.

Ant wants to lump poor Bruno into his own rigid category of NOT SCIENCE, but he's not considering the historical context.

That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense to say the Church had no scientific position or wasn't concerned with science. Theological heresy is all they had back then. Remember the Church also persecuted Gallileo just a couple of decades after Bruno. That was their thing. One of your clues is that Bruno was also charged with witchcraft.

The philosopher Hegel wrote that Bruno's ideas represented a "bold rejection of all Catholic beliefs resting on mere authority." The idea that truth rests with rational understanding of the nature of the universe was very threatening to the Church—which wanted to be seen as the sole authority—and so they burned him.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... evival.htm

Just because something is objective, it does not mean it's even truthful.
What a crock.

Unless you’re omniscient, you cannot say whether or not many of today’s theories are forever true. Since we cannot say for certain which may be true, we would have to consider the entire lot of our existing pool of theories as subjective, according to you(since unchanging truthfulness is a required condition for objectivity). Is this your stance?

If data as a referent is interpreted differently across various interpreters, then the descriptive language of said data has no objective value whatsoever.

If the “language of said data” changes from subject to subject as you say, then it is subjective. Such interpretations are distinct from the data itself. When you disambiguate the two, you have the mathematical data which does not change, then you have the interpretations which do change. The interpretations include metaphors and descriptive language.

Math comes from a subjective being. Are you saying the language of math applies everywhere and at all times?

No, I’m saying it doesn’t need to apply everywhere and at all times to be objective. Are you saying math is subjective?

deleted

I am considering the historical context. Bruno's charges were not scientific related. He was charged with matters unrelated to cosmology.
Are you saying he was? Prove me wrong?

Wiki;

Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake.

Ant seems to be assuming that science and theology were completely separate pursuits then

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am is distinguishing between what Bruno was charged with by the Church and how Cosmos is depicting him to be - a martyr for science.

Remember the Church also persecuted Gallileo just a couple of decades after Bruno

Again, your historical ignorance is astounding. I don't have enough time to kick the stuffing out of it completely, but do the research.
The church persecuted Gallileo for promoting heliocentrism without evidence AND for mocking the Pope and the Church in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The Pope asked for arguments for and against heliocentrism. Gallileo instead made the unwise decision to mock rather than develop his arguments further.

Also, heliocentrism was denied by the astronomical community and intelligentsia at that time. Gallileo was up against that as well. It wasn't just Gallileo vs the Church. You're leaving out a huge chunk of context.
It wasn't just the Church's position like youre implying here.
Are you going to claim that astronomers and the educated populace at that time had not choice but to go along with geocentrism? You'll need to provide evidence for that conspiratorial theory.

This is precisely why arguing with you here is futile.
You have a very poor, biased, and incomplete understanding of History

Again,
Can you name one person burned at the stake for a scientific hypothesis?
Or for practicing science?

Do you even know any names of men of the cloth that practiced science and have contributed to the growth of science, or are you saying the church just went around looking for scientists to burn at the stake?

Too funny!