Feb 17--Giordano Bruno--A Day to Remember

Today marks the anniversary of the Catholic Church's burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, sometimes thought of as the first martyr for free thought and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Some highlights of that article:

A list of the "crimes" he committed.


His sentencing.


The Catholic Church's take on it?

Yeah, actually burning Bruno at the stake might have provided some incentive for Galileo to back down a little more than Bruno did. Funny how the threat of horrific pain will do that.

One of my favorite quotations from Bruno.


I will drink a toast to him tonight.

except now it's being run by the Falwell and Robertson types.

"The Hermetica" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy? Their book was dedicated to the memory of Giordano Bruno. It's a book of Hermetic thought in poetry form. My favorite is "In Praise of Atum."

Guest Editorial (The SETI League)
by Prof. Richard W. Pogge, Ohio State University

... In popular accounts of the life of Bruno, it is often said that he was condemned for his Copernicanism and his belief in life on other worlds. He is portrayed as a martyr to free thought, and an early, prosecuted proponent of the modern view of the universe, hounded across Europe by the Inquisition for his beliefs and finally paying the ultimate price for them in a fiery public death. He has become a symbol of the intolerance of authority in the face of new ideas. These accounts, however, often leave out two fundamental aspects of the case of Giordano Bruno that cast matters in a somewhat different light. The first calls into doubt how closely we should link Bruno with the history of astronomy and what came to be called the "Scientific Revolution", and the second offers a perspective on the undeniable tragedy of his life that make him less of a symbol, but in the balance makes him more human.

The one key fact of the study of Bruno's life is that we do not actually know the exact grounds of his conviction on charges of heresy. The simple reason is that the relevant records have been lost. This is quite unlike the state of affairs in the later trial of Galileo, where we have extensive documentation including the forgeries that played a role in the case against him. In the case of Bruno, we must seek clues in contemporary accounts and in an examination of his writings.

Except for certain particular passages that excite our interest today, much of his work had little to do with astronomy. Indeed, Bruno was not an astronomer and demonstrated a very poor grasp of the subject in what he did write. The theme of his On the Infinite Universe and Worlds is not Copernicanism but pantheism, a theme also developed in his On Shadows of Ideas. It appears that his personal cosmology informed his espousal of Copernicus, not the other way around. Much of his work was theological in nature, and constituted a passionate frontal assault on the philosophical basis of the Church's spiritual teachings, especially on the nature of human salvation and on the primacy of the soul (or in modern terms, he opposed the Church's emphasis on spiritualism with an unapologetic and all-encompassing materialism). Copernicanism, where it entered at all, was supporting material not the central thesis. This suggests that the Church's complaint with Bruno was theological not astronomical.

Further support for the idea that Copernicanism was likely to have played only a minor role if any in his conviction comes from the contemporary record of the discussion of this idea. What many popular accounts seem to miss is that the Church did not formally condemn Copernicanism until well after Bruno's death. While Copernicanism was indeed a topic of discussion and controversy in Bruno's time, few astronomers supported it in 1600, and the Church itself was not to express an official opinion on the matter until 1616. By that time, Galileo's telescopic observations (from 1610 on) had completely changed the intellectual landscape, and the Church only then felt compelled to respond to the rapidly growing controversy. The issue was brought to the fore by the publication of a book by Paolo Antonio Foscarini (1565-1616) that defended Copernicanism against charges made by itinerant preaching monks that it was in conflict with Scripture, casting the issue in theological terms that the Church could no longer ignore ...

http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm


Here's the author's webpage:

Richard W. Pogge
Professor of Astronomy
The Ohio State University
Department of Astronomy
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/


So far as possible, historical matters should be addressed accurately. Examined honestly, Bruno may not have been an important (or even a competent) scientific thinker. He perhaps remains important as a symbol of freedom of thought and conscience.

Nope.

1. Was Bruno tied naked to a post and burned alive?
2. Did the Catholic Church pass this sentence on him?
3. Was it done because he didn't agree with their dogma/science?

Three yeses and that's all I need to know.

You can nitpick all night long about what the "real" charges were, but it doesn't matter one damn stitch to me. You can tell me some of his science was a little fucked up or wrong and I don't really give a shit because some of it was spot on, but he was burned for holding scientific and dogmatic thought different than the church.

If you don't think that is bullshit, then I'm sorry for you.

Nice work, GM. That's really all there is to it. I wish I could say I was astonished that someone on liberal DU would even begin to try and justify Bruno's execution, but I've seen far too much to be surprised anymore.

Please do tell.

Does this not deserve attention?

and more generally the immorality of silencing people by the threat of violence. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you purport to read any view contrary to that in anything I have ever posted anywhere at DU

2. Nevertheless, historical examination suggests Bruno was not exactly matryr of science he is sometimes alleged to be, insofar as Bruno seems not to have been a scientist but a speculative philosopher -- engaging in no experiments or modeling whatsoever

3. The question, of exactly what happened to Bruno, is possibly of interest to anyone, who might from time to time pay the price of confronting authority -- and, unfortunately, it cannot be known with certainty.

But there is something very odd about the case of Bruno: he could have escaped the Roman Inquisition by continuing in the portions of Europe not under Catholic control, but instead returned voluntarily and was subjected to a very long trial, during which he seems to have been accused of heresy and denied the charge, essentially at the end throwing his hands to say something like Well, I tried, which suggests the entire episode looked quite different to Bruno than to his accusers.

There are (as I am sure you are aware) certain insecure and vindicative authority figures who are much more concerned about perceived threats to their own authority than they are about the exact details of whatever they have chosen to interpret as challenging them. The psychology of such interactions is bizarre: once the authority figure interprets anything as defiance, absolutely no possibility for rational dialog remains but what the authority figure seeks is evidence of submission; these petty tyrants do not appear only in religious contexts but are scattered throughout power structures of every sort. Without the full record, of course, there can be no proof that Bruno's trial should be described this way, but it is consistent psychologically with the facts of the previous paragraph.

4. It is interesting to me that some people who want Bruno as a martyr of free-thought may not regard St. Stephen or Perpetua or the Anabaptist martyrs in the same light -- though in all cases the people in question fearlessly and honestly spoke their minds in the face of mortal danger

Other than the obvious one, why you are so interested in diminishing the significance of this man's murder?

But I doubted that you would be willing.

You posted a statement expressing curiosity about why other people don't respond to your posts. I believe this thread is a perfect example of why so many people don't wish to engage you in a conversation.

that those threads don't offer "so many people" the opportunity to indulge in their favorite form of bashing.

and then take a look at the thread and tell me who is bashing whom? Who started the urination on this thread? I am assuming that by "so many people" you are not referring to yourself and struggle. Too bad you can't see in yourself and others on your side what you complain about in others. There's a word for that...I just can't remember. BMUS has a great graphic for it.

Finally, someone has the guts to defend burning people at the stake in the name of Jesus.

You cite an astronomer speaking about history and religion to rebut religious scholars speaking about history and astronomy. And I'll bet you don't see the problem do you? :)

which is apparently fairly negligible -- despite the widespread and incorrect notion Bruno was destroyed for advocating the idea that the stars were other suns or for supporting the Copernican hypothesis.

Since the OP link was to Wikipedia, I have some difficulty seeing how you read the astronomer's remarks on Bruno as an attempt "to rebut religious scholars speaking about history and astronomy" -- and am therefore inclined to think that your response has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've actually posted

Of the four things I post from "Wikipedia" two were quotations from Bruno and one was a quotation from an apologist catholic site that you also link to. But, sure, right MY sources off as silly.

What you call an "apologist catholic site" is the Vatican; I provided the link elsewhere in this thread.

there would be no reason for the vatican to not be 100% accurate and place no spin on their burning and trials of scientists and those that thought differntly than the dogma of the church. How silly of me to think so. It is the pope after all, he has to tell the truth.

by now I expect that if I were to ask you to be specific in your implied charges of "spinning their burning and trials of scientists" you would bandy the question itself about as evidence that I think burning people alive is acceptable

I said the site you pasted was apologist. You said it was the vatican. I am merely saying that the modern vatican can certainly act as an apologist to the past vatican. I was not intending to imply anything about you spinning the history.

The OP list the 'crimes' Bruno was accused of; they are clearly theological. So why are you wittering on about "So far as possible, historical matters should be addressed accurately".

And why the phrase "Examined honestly"? Has anyone here not been honest?

"He perhaps remains important as a symbol of freedom of thought and conscience"? Hell, yes. The Catholic church burnt him alive for saying they were wrong. There's no 'perhaps' about it.

say that the earth was not the center of the universe." There are, in addition, the claims made in the OP itself about why Bruno was burned. Such claims cannot be made with any certainty: the trial of Bruno lasted seven years, and produced a voluminous record, all of which is now "lost," except for the Vatican reference volume to which I provided a link. It is, of course, extremely odd (and suggestive) that these records were "lost" -- but it does limit what can be said with certainty regarding the case. It is my view that matters are best discussed with attention to such details.

Here is some context:

The Copernican model itself was proposed more than fifty years prior to Bruno's death and was published only after repeated requests from churchmen to Copernicus that he explain his system, just as Galileo's text was originally published with the blessing of the church. Copernicus' work seems to have provoked little controversy for some decades, and when, after the trial of Galileo, it was added to the index of forbidden books, only minor changes were required to free it from anathema. Meanwhile, the Tychonic model which was fully equivalent in a mathematical sense to the Copernican model was widely adopted and never seems to have excited church opposition. The orbital laws deduced by Tycho Brahe's protege Kepler, of course, destroyed at one stroke both the Tychonic and Copernican models -- but Kepler's ideas were unpalatable to almost everyone, and Galileo himself eventually opined that Kepler was insane because he believed the moon was somehow related to the tides. And having had the sense to remain in territory controlled by the Reformation, Kepler never burned.

I am inclined, in theological discussions, to sort out (so far as possible) the remnants of old power struggles fossilized into theological dogma. Because the Roman Inquisition was part and parcel of the Counter-Reformation, the trials of Bruno and Galileo potentially provide insight into ways authority responds with force and ideologically justifies its use of force. In those cases, the authority was Catholic and the ideological justification theological, but similar mechanisms are presumably at work whenever authority seeks to justify its use of violence against challengers.

The mythology of St. Bruno is another interesting topic: many modern scientists, Christian theologians, and atheists alike would regard anyone today, who expounded the views held by Bruno, as a complete crackpot. One admires him primarily for having had the courage of his convictions.

It is, of course, fine with me if such issues do not interest you.

The current term of art, I believe, is "woo-woo."

they're saying "how dare they execute someone for disagreeing with them". It was only to the power-crazed Vatican that what he said mattered.

the Human Rights Watch 1992 report, for example, remarks



Murder as a tactic for silencing people is common



If one is indeed interested in crimes against free conscience, examples can easily be found in the modern age, far surpassing the relatively small numbers of Christians fed to lions by the Roman empire for nonviolent and purely verbal crimes or the relatively small number of heretics burned by either the Catholic church or its Protestant successors.

that science-based atheists are burning woo-woos at the stake. Oh, wait, no they aren't. See that is the big difference. Bruno disagreed with the church. He thought the earth rotated on his axis and revolved around the sun. He thought there were many suns and many planets, some of which may contain life. (So far, a real fruit cake, right?) He seems to be somewhat of a pantheist. Some of that gets a little goofy for my taste, but the point is that he was burned because he questioned the church and tried to advance science. If you can't rally behind him as a symbol for what is good in the face of what is shitty, then I don't know what you would rally behind.

then I invite you to review the long history of cruel medical experiments, visited upon unwilling patients, by various well-regarded "expert" doctors in the course of the last three centuries -- all done in the name of "science," of course, and some of it within living memory.

It is simply dishonest to attempt to draw conclusions by comparing an event in 1600, that you interpret as an attack of the Church upon science, with the purported non-existence of attacks upon "woo-woos" by modern scientists. (We can disregard the question of atheism for the purpose of your argument, since Bruno apparently considered himself a good Catholic, whatever else he was)

You're trying to establish some sort of parallel Hierarchy of Evil Actions between the Catholic Church and nonaligned scientists whose ethics failed.

Here's where you last paragraph breaks down: even Nazi scientists weren't experimenting on and killing their victims BECAUSE they were woo-woos. Modern scientists don't attack woo-woos, though they do of course attack the unsupported nonsense they espouse.

Find me one - ONE - shred of evidence of scientists murdering people for their beliefs the way the Catholic Church did and has, and maybe you'll start to have a point.

The subtext here is: cruel arbitrary religion versus humane and tolerant science.

But the purported anti-parallelism is false for a number of reasons.

First, because it attempts to contrast a cruel event in 1600, perpetrated by the Vatican of that time, against the supposed non-cruelties of scientists today. No such comparison, across a span of four centuries could possibly be meaningful.

Second, because it attempts to portray the cruelty of the event as an essential feature of the Catholic religion, which it is not.

The burning of Bruno occurs at the end of the Roman Inquisition, and to my knowledge nobody burned in Rome after Bruno. The fact that the Vatican "lost" the record of the trial suggests to me some considerable official embarrassment about the actual details of the event. The official Vatican position today stands heavily against the death penalty and heavily against any use of violence in propagating the faith.

Moreover, such authoritarian cruelty was common at that time, which (while not excusing church acceptance or encouragement of such acts of cruelty) shows again that the authoritarian cruelty was not peculiarly religious, as you may see by contemplating the record of Henry VIII. In realities, such brutality throughout is unfortunately a common reaction of authorities when their authority is challenged. One sees it equally in the Nazi execution of Sophie Sholl and in the Salvadoran death squad execution of Archbishop Romero, and of course such phenomena continue today.

Third, because it attempts to portray scientists in contrast as beacons of humane behavior, when in fact the same authoritarian character disorders that lead certain churchmen to burn Bruno recur in all contexts.

You assert that modern scientists don't attack "woo-woos." Against this, I should rather rather that almost all humans (scientists or otherwise) are individuals of good will, who do not use their authority to injure others while claiming they are motivated by "the good of mankind" -- but that in essentially every situation where some individuals wield authority over others, there can be found persons who are happy to justify torturing or killing others who they regard as inferior, even if "woo-woo" is not the particular derogatory term applied.

You claim with certainty that the Nazi doctors never experimented on patients because they were "woo-woos." Real scholarship on that grisly topic would be both difficult and depressing, so let us content ourselves with a few indications. Political opposition in Nazi Germany was a potentially capital offense, and the concentration camps contained all manner of "offenders," including communists, priests, gays, and persons guilty of violating "racial purity laws" (among others). Any such person who died in a Nazi medical experiment, died because the state and the doctor had concluded the person was in some sense a "woo-woo" whose suffering or death would be justified by some "greater good." If you want to insist nobody fell into that category, you should provide some real evidence making your claim plausible because I see no reason to believe it.

But I actually had in mind other examples, equally cruel to my mind, which were justified by some mythical "good" and involved a complete disregard for the humanity of the patients.

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a prime example: in this case doctors pretended to treat but deliberately failed to treat and merely studied infected people, who, of course, they did not call "woo-woos" but probably did call some other offensive name. Walter Freeman's innumerable ice-pick lobotomies, too often performed against the patients' wishes, provide another example, and in this case one may be fairly sure that a term such as "woo-woo" does describe how the saintly doctor regarded his patients. The origins of this surgery have been traced:



It is not at all difficult to multiply such examples. What they seem to me to have in common is a certain sociopathic tendency, that in its fullest form leads to serial murder:




While I agree we can learn something from Bruno's case, what I would take away is apparently unacceptable to those who want to conceptualize case as illustrating some eternal struggle between religion and a freethinker, a conceptualization I regard as mythologizing. As indicated by my posts in this thread, I prefer to understand the episode as shedding some light on the ways in which power structures may seek to protect their own authority in times of crisis, and the ways in which authoritarian personalities use abstract ideological considerations to justify violence in the name of some "greater good."

and was a practicing occultist. He seems to have undergone serial conversions, first to Calvinism, then to Lutheranism, both considered heresy or "atheism" in the terminology of the period, before boomeranging back to the Catholic Church. (Protestants, by the way, considered Catholics "atheists" in return.) Bruno was burned because he questioned the church, period. How much he actually tried to "advance science" is another matter and open to question.

SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL AGAINST GIORDANO BRUNO
Rome, 1597

Paper volume, 320x240mm, ff. 429 (ancient, partly wrong numbering and not inclusive of many white folios), bound in parchment; on the back: VARIA. Censurae. ASV, Misc., Arm. X, 205, ff. 230v‑231r

In one of the volumes of the fond “Miscellanea Armadi” (Arm. X, 205), maybe made up of the collection of different documents by the famous canonist Francisco Peña, Auditor and then Dean of the Rota (he died in 1612), there is a precious document, searched for a long time, then kept secret for a long time and finally found on the 15th November 1940 .. after 15 years .. by the Prefect of the Vatican Archives ..: the summary of the trial against Giordano Bruno ...

Since the volume or the volumes of the Roman trial against Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), once kept in the archives of the Holy Office, were irremediably lost, this document, which derives from the originals (on the margins of the document you often find citations of the pages of the lost trial), is the most precious testimonies we have to understand the long and troublesome inquisitorial event the famous Dominican friar underwent ...

http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1597.htm

The humane vicissitudes of Giordano Bruno ended with the Roman trial (1593-1600) and with the sentence of proven heresy, which, due to his resolute and extreme statement of not being guilty, changed into capital punishment, executed at Campo de’ Fiori on the 17th February 1600. In one of the last interrogations before the execution of the sentence (maybe in April 1599), the Dominican friar was questioned by the judges of the Holy Office on his cosmogony conception, supported above all in the “La cena delle Ceneri”(Ash-Wednesday Dinner) and in the “De l’infinito universo et mundi”. Even then, he defended his theories as scientifically founded and by no means against the Holy Scriptures (left side, from the first line: Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Prima generalmente dico ch’il mo<t>o et la cosa del moto della terra e della immobilità del firmamento o cielo sono da me prodotte con le sue raggioni et autorità le quali sono certe, e non pregiudicano all’autorità della divina scrittura <...>. Quanto al sole dico che niente manco nasce e tramonta, né lo vedemo nascere e tramontare, perché la terra se gira circa il proprio centro, che s’intenda nascere e tramontare <... >). (Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures <…>. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting<…>).
In the same rooms where Giordano Bruno was questioned, for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy, sixteen years later, Cardinal Bellarmino, who then contested Bruno’s heretical theses, summoned Galileo Galilei, who also faced a famous inquisitorial trial, which, luckily for him, ended with a simple abjuration.


Yep. Seems like he was executed for his scientific positions.

have produced a voluminous record, that this record is now "lost" except for the volume indicated on the Vatican website in question, and that the fact that the Vatican provides certain quotes from Bruno (on its single webpage devoted to the topic) does not much clarify what the real underlying issues were.

By 1600, of course, the Reformation had swept across Europe, and the Roman Church had lost authority across much of Europe. This had been a violent process, going back at least to the Hussite wars. By 1600, although quite a few lives had been lost in these power struggles, and Rome rather clearly hoped to forestall further territorial losses by ending challenges to its authority.

Bruno, of course, was burned for somehow challenging the Vatican's authority. But for some reasons unknown today, it took seven years to obtain "proof" of this challenge sufficient to engineer political support for his execution. If it were simply a matter of Bruno holding that the earth moved, why wouldn't the case have been settled immediately? Since Bruno's real interests were philosophical, rather than scientific, it would be strange if his seven year trial centered around legitimate scientific issues. As the Vatican material you quote indicates that Bruno denied his views were heretical, it seems equally plausible that Bruno's "crime" was that he insisted his own theology was non-heretical, despite being told by his examiners that others considered it heretical -- which might be more in keeping with the Counter-Reformation context of the Roman Inquisition.

sounds oddly like the Clinton impeachment. They weren't putting Clinton on trial because he had an affair but because he lied about it (which natually asks the question "Why did you have to ask him that in the first place?").

You are saying that they didn't burn Bruno because he held the views that he did, but just that he wouldn't agree that his views were bad. Which naturally asks the question "Why put him on trial just for disagreeing with you?"

There is no reason offered why he was executed. It is only the fact that it is not thoroughly documented that is being pointed out. I have to agree that we cannot say for certain that he was convicted for his scientific views. Its the same logic that informs us that we cannot say for certain that a person named Jesus actually existed.

I can agree that there is insufficient evidence to demand that he was executed for his scientific views. But this gap does not provide any contrary information so it only places the claim into question and demands that further evidence be produced.

until more than a decade after Bruno burned -- well over fifty years after it was first published -- and it was thereafter permitted to be published with only minor revisions.

It also points out that Bruno was a speculative philosopher with essentially no ideas that would be regarded as scientific today -- and I think it must be difficult to argue that Bruno was burned for his scientific ideas, if he had none.

But if you do want to argue that Bruno had scientific ideas, you should at least be able to point out in his writings where he reports experiments (as Galileo did) or observations (as Tycho Brahe did) or models (as Copernicus or Kepler did). The writings of Bruno, at least, still exist, even if the full record of his trial does not

I would still return to my three questions above. It really doesn't matter to me why they killed him, just that they did it because he vocally opposed them in some manner of doctrine and/or science. Most likely both.

One of the many victims of the Immoral Juggernaut that is the Catholic church. And another toast...to Reason and Science, and all its children. If it weren't for these enlightened people, we would still be discussing the merits of this or that torture device in getting witches to confess.

May the catholic church continue its descent into uselessness. May we one day live on an Earth without it.

his view of Copernicanism: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/6.1.Supper.html

It is interesting to set Bruno's work beside the famous "De Revolutionibus" of Copernicus, which is linked at the same site: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/1.1.Revol.html


Copernicus, who has made a careful study of the astronomy of his time, tries (fort example) to discuss what is known and what the controversies are.

Bruno, on the other hand, apparently knows hardly anything about astronomy and mainly babbles about how great Bruno is.

but for a different reason.

struggle is bringing up really matter? I'm serious; does it matter? Go back up thread to my three questions. Those are the only things important to me. Do you disagree with any of them? Is anyone in this thread holding up Bruno as a scientific standard to be strived for? No. It is the fact that he was killed by the catholic church for thinking for himself and having the gall to talk about it and not back down. The specifics seem irrelevant.

But, by all means, go ahead. Tell me why we shouldn't side with Bruno.

I suppose it depends on how you look at the world. Details and specifics matter, or they don't. To me, and apparently to struggle as well, they matter.

It doesn't change the fact that what was done to him was evil. It doesn't change the fact that he was a martyr for freedom of thought and free speech. But it does change our understanding of what he was actually saying, and in as much as that matters to you or not, you can appreciate the details or not, as you see fit.

is arguing that the bulk of his scientific work is correct. NOBODY. My intent in the OP and others that have chimed in have been about the "martyr for freedom of thought and free speech." It is struggle that is trying to make this about Bruno's science. I have no idea why he is trying to do that. I could hazard a guess, but it would only be a guess and would piss some people off.

It's just about understanding what the man actually said.

Why is that such a problem?

I don't care what he said. All I care about is that the Catholic Church killed him because he said it. That is why I celebrate his death. That is why I remember him on the anniversary of his death.

I don't care what he said.

I do care. Is that okay with you?

Wait... I think I know the answer.

Can you tell me why you care? Why does it matter what Bruno's views on science were?

And as a follow up, why does that apply to this thread which is talking about honoring someone as a martyr for freedom of expression and thought?

I'm a curious person by nature. That's all.

As for why they apply to this thread... well, cause it's about Bruno.

That eight years of peace and prosperity doesn't matter as much as one blow job. Some people just care about style more than substance.

Or maybe it is just the urge to "blame the victim" that possesses you?

What is it that gives you that impression?

Are you trying to be insulting, by comparing what I'm saying to a Republic 'argument'? That's how it comes across, you know.

Naturally, he wasn't a strict scientist like they exist now. So yes, he had some weird ideas. But this thread was about honouring a man who was killed by the christian church for disagreeing with them. What is offensive is that you and struggleforprogress came and shit on Goblinmonger's thread about stuff that is absolutely irrelevant. Go take your dump in another thread.


On edit: No wait. Do take a dump on this thread. Go the fuck ahead. And when I do the same to your next thread, don't expect me to back off. Because I won't.

or observation, together with calculation, had advocates at Oxford University beginning in the thirteenth century. You may see this clearly, for example, in the work of Roger Bacon:

On Experimental Science (1268)

... There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment ... Even if a man that has never seen fire, proves by good reasoning that fire burns, and devours and destroys things, nevertheless the mind of one hearing his arguments would never be convinced, nor would he avoid fire until he puts his hand or some combustible thing into it in order to prove by experiment what the argument taught. But after the fact of combustion is experienced, the mind is satisfied and lies calm in the certainty of truth. Hence argument is not enough, but experience is ... Whoever wishes without proof to revel in the truths of things need only know how to neglect experience. This is evident from examples. Authors write many things and the people cling to them through arguments which they make without experiment, that are utterly false ... This science has three great purposes in regard to the other sciences: the first is that one may criticize by experiment the noble conclusions of all the other sciences, for the other sciences know that their principles come from experiment, but the conclusions through arguments drawn from the principles discovered, if they care to have the result of their conclusions precise and complete. It is necessary that they have this through the aid of this noble science. It is true that mathematics reaches conclusions in accordance with universal experience about figures and numbers, which indeed apply to all sciences and to this experience, because no science can be known without mathematics ...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bacon2.html


The essential feature of this "experimental science" was that speculation alone is insufficient: no matter how crafty the argument, reasoning by itself is mere noise until supported by material observations. Galileo, and the other serious astronomers of his time, practiced something very much like Bacon's philosophy, designing mathematical models, observing phenomena, and comparing the results of the observations to the models. This is why Brahe so diligently examined the orbit of Mars, for example, recording observations which enabled Kepler to frame the orbital laws that contradicted the circular orbits Copernicus had proposed.

There were quite a number of capable astronomers, including both mathematicians and observators, who were conversant with the Ptolemaic, Copernican, and Tychonic proposals by the time Bruno visited Oxford: one of these was Thomas Digges, who proposed to eliminate the firmament and to explain the fact that no parallax was observed for the fixed stars (a major argument against the heliocentric system) simply because the stars were so far away. Some scholars have suggested Bruno went to Oxford rather ignorant of Copernicanism and learned most of what he knew about the system from the Oxford crowd; in particular, it has been suggested that Bruno's ideas on the size of the universe really originated with Digges. Perhaps Bruno's real attitude, towards Copernicus and other astronomical scholars of his time, may be gauged from this characteristic quote (in which, being from Nola, he refers to himself as the Nolan):



This approach -- from a person who did no astronomical observations, who had contempt for mathematical models, and whose sole method of inquiry was speculation -- may explain why Bruno ultimately had no influence in the scientific community of his time.

That changes exactly what? That a man who had weird ideas was killed for them. You can take the scientist away from him, but you cannot take away that he was a martyr for freedom of thought. Thats what your not getting...you can argue whatever you fucking want, but the fact remains...

A man was burnt for not believing in the church doctrine, and for that I salute him.

... decided that it would be politically useful to burn somebody, and Bruno (after unfortunately alienating people across Europe) fit the bill, having none of the political connections that might have protected him from being served up as an instructive example? (This happens: you no doubt remember the Annhole urging the execution of the unpopular John Walker Lindh as an example to frighten the Democrats.)

The Vatican of the time was in a state of crisis, as the Reformation continued to gain in Europe. It is reasonable to expect that authoritarians became louder and gained influence in the Vatican as Catholic authority eroded, simply because loud self-assured authoritarians always have the advantage in such circumstances, that they propound a simple and easily-understood program for gaining control. This view, of political developments inside the Catholic world, would explain why the work of Copernicus remained theologically non-controversial for some decades after it was first published but has become a major issue by the time of the trial of Galileo.

Any thesis about Bruno must deal with the seven year trial, the fact that he claimed not to be a heretic, and the fact that the records are lost. Nothing here can be known with any certainty. The length of the trial suggests difficulty in proving heresy, which in turn suggests that Bruno's claims not to have been heretical may have had a basis in fact. If the records didn't clearly establish a charge of heresy, on later inspection, that fact alone might explain why it would be convenient to lose the records. If very authoritarian personalities obtained positions of influence, in reaction to the Reformation, Bruno may simply have been subjected to a lengthy ordeal by a collection of people all of whom had already decided he would burnt and who simply confined him and repeated interrogated him until they had produced a documentary record sufficient to cry heresy (using standards then in force).

Bottom line: General moral principles (of course) require me to side with Bruno against his executioners. But I don't know what to think of Bruno himself: I cannot understand his mindset, in part because I really don't understand the culture in which he moved

Talking about "shit" and "taking a dump" simply because someone points out something you don't like.

Just nasty.

But its okay, I forgive you. Like Jesus.

Sacred, and not to be profaned with observations of uncomfortable facts?

Interesting...

I wouldn't want to profane them. Now, if you please don't mind, I would appreciate it if you started a thread about somebody who has died and you were honouring, so that I could post "uncomfortable facts" about that person.

... and now you're telling me what I should do to better please you. Amazing.

:)

The most important contribution of Bill Clinton was eight years of peace and prosperity.

YET

Some people only see a man who got a blow job.

SIMILARLY

The most important contribution of Mr. Bruno was his death at the hands of the Catholic Church.

YET

Some people only see a substandard astronomer.

If this comparison is beyond your comprehension, you have my sympathy.

I didn't say that. I think I said otherwise, actually...

Yes, Clinton was in office during a great time in America's history. Does it behoove us to ignore that he stabbed us in the back by signing the Telecommunications deal, by pushing NAFTA down our throats? I sure don't think so.

Do I consdier anyone who points out uncomfortable facts to be "taking a dump"? No. They are simply pointing out facts, which some people for whatever reason would rather not be reminded of.

And I can point out facts that you might not like to be reminded of. Such as the fact that religion is often indistinguishable from mental illness. But I wouldn't do that, it would be unkind. Wouldn't it?

Having the right to be insulting does not require that you be insulting. You do not have a monopoly on rudeness. If you wish to behave rudely, be prepared to be treated rudely.

Childish, maybe... if I thought you were only saying such a thing to try to be insulting... but certainly not unkind simply to make the observation in earnest.

Are you and others perceiving struggle's pointing out of this information as some kind of personal slight? I suppose so... hence all the talk of shit and insults.

What did I do that was rude? Stain the sacred Bruno worship thread? I am finding this thread slightly ironic.

Is the importance of remembering Bruno's death. Disparaging that is is rude. Now I know how to deal with you. Rudely.

If you find this thread lacks the satisfaction you desire, why don't you have the courtesy to ignore it? Oh, I guess I already answered that.

which I don't know why you consider that disparaging, but whatever... do you realize this thread would have four replies?

I guess you'd rather it sink and disappear. That's fine by me, too.

If it weren't for assholes there wouldn't be shit flying everywhere.

Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't mean that having shit flying everywhere is a good thing.

No, I'm simply saying that this thread, meant to pay tribute to this man for being persecuted, hasn't really attracted all that much in the way of attention.

Fine, you win. When you say nasty things, it's good... when others point out facts you don't think belong here, it's bad.

Good day, sir.

was hijacked by people who wished to disparage the memory of Mr. Bruno.

It may have gone straight to the bottom of the page, but it would not have become a shit storm without those who would rather be rude than respectful. Yes, that means you.

but in my opinion it was you and one other poster who were rude.

Perspective is funny that way.

to avoid giving offense, but you chose to ignore every opportunity. And still you blame others. Wow!

Where is the blame?

and another person of being rude. Yet you pretend that you are not blaming others. Is that a classic symptom of denial? Have you been in touch with reality lately?

that you were the ones being rude... that is blaming you for something?

And I see you're choosing to continue with the rude, childish "been in touch with reality" type statements... *sigh*

saying I am being childish. But that is not insulting, because you are above that (in your own mind).

Funny how my negative comments are rude, but yours are just opinion. Where do you get your double standards, I'd like to shop there too.

Negative comments are not all equal. This is not a black and white world.

Of who is rude or childish and who is just opinionated. So on top of denial, self-righteousness, rudeness, and insulting comments, you are also judgmental. (for everyone but yourself)

When you only see yourself in the fairest of light, but you see others in the harshest subjective reality, they usually call that hypocrisy. I guess we will add that to the list of your "attributes" as well.

than the bullshit that has happened.

:rant:
Sinking in R/T is not quite the same as GD or The Lounge. We don't have quite the turnaround here. I would much rather that in a couple days this floated to page two of the forum. That way people could have looked at it, thought about it, and appreciated Bruno for what he is today, a symbol of free thought and speech. Instead, you and struggle turned it into a "he's not a real scientist and kinda weird guy" thread which has fucking absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was burned because he exercised free speech and thought.

So, yeah, i would rather it sink and disappear.

I, finally, would like to say that I, nor the two "rude" people on this thread that you speak of, have never, FUCKING NEVER, come into a thread which was an honest declaration (rather than a call for discussion) of joy or awe at a religious event/holiday and pissed all over that thread. Actually, on several occasions, I have offered my Xian brothers and sisters a good holiday season (be that Xmas, Easter, whatever) as well as solstice and other religions that post. But god fucking forbid an atheist come in here and mention a day that would be a good time to think about the importance of free thought and speech and how shitty people were hundreds of years ago (and somewhat returning to that today) to others that exercised those freedoms. When that happens, apparently you think it is just fine to threadjack that into something that is fucking completely different from the intent of the post and then acted all fucking shocked when someone says you are talking shit about something irrelevant to the thread.

I am sick and goddamed tired of theists in this forum bitching about how rude the atheists are and then those same theists do the most rude bullshit in the forum. The mainstay of atheists that post in R/T are, by far, more polite, thoughtful, and considerate than you have been in this thread. I find the hypocricy damned amazing.

And before you even think of doing it, don't you fucking dare continue with the "isn't it ironic that the atheists have this religion of Bruno" bullshit that you have been alluding to. It is a day to think about freedoms because a very horrible and visible execution was committed on that day. If you go into a "this is a religion" tangent, you will look like an enormous, ignorant ass.

Again, if it is between you and struggle spouting apolgist bullshit and threadjacking my thread or having it sink and die with only a few people that can appreciate what Bruno did having read it, I vote for sink and die over the sewerfest you made it.
:rant:

I actually feel a little better now.

simply because of the shitstorm being raised.

I'll go back in my hole now...

it is the anniversary of the death of one of my favorite non-fiction writers. Maybe you want to go over to that thread and talk about how much of an ass he was

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6214976

Of course those that liked him will just agree with you.

I was going to ask the moderators to remove the subthread that I started, but instead I am posting this apology here.

It was not my intention to be disrespectfully disruptive, and I'm sorry for all offense I caused.

:rofl: