He was killed for "thinking differently" in the same way Dahmer was killed
for poor table manners. More seriously, he was more astrologer than
astronomer. So why include him at all but to pick at the modern trope of
the incompatibility faith & science? Even from a secular historian, the
simplistic distortions should be.... distasteful, but from anyone who
holds faith, reason, and history in equal regard could not be anything
but... disapproving, if not "indignant."
This captures my thoughts on it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/03/10/cosmos-pick-wrong-hero/
"…That depiction in the new Cosmos matches the standard textbook story of
Bruno, but it is misleading and in some ways downright wrong. For starters,
Bruno was not the first to link the idea of infinite space with the
infinite glory of God. That idea actually originated with Nicolas of Cusa,
a German philosopher who lived a century earlier (and who wrote about the
notion of infinite space even before Copernicus, though not in a detailed
astronomical way). Nicolas kept his infinite theology within the Catholic
framework, however, and suffered no ill consequences for his views.
Bruno also was not much of a Copernican, or by most accounts much of an
astronomer at all. His interests were theological, not physical, and his
astronomical writings are considered amateurish and confused…In Cosmos,
Tyson does carefully say that Bruno was not a scientist, and instead
describes that picture of infinite worlds as a “guess.” But Bruno was not
guessing. He was advancing his own, heretical theology, which goes a long
way to understanding the real reason that he was burned at the stake….
…Nor was Bruno the simple, humble figure shown on TV. A major reason he
moved around so much is that he was argumentative, sarcastic, and drawn to
controversy. He engaged in bitter academic disputes, many of which had
nothing to do with his cosmic framework. One example He fled France because
of a violent dispute about the proper use of a compass (seriously)."
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On Apr 21, 2014 5:01 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for bringing up the old topic here, but they didn't actually present
> Bruno as a scientist in the show at all. In fact, Tyson made it explicitly
> clear in the show that Bruno wasn't a scientist, and that it was probably
> just good luck (well, I guess it wasn't really good for him ultimately)
> that he happened to come to the right conclusion since he had no evidence
> to base his ideas on.
>
> I really don't get the level of indignation that people have about how
> Bruno was presented in Cosmos, and everyone that I've heard complaining
> about it seems to have missed the point, which was that ultimately he was a
> guy who was punished for thinking differently. Yes, they simplified the
> history of what happened somewhat (e.g. not really mentioning that he was a
> supporter of Copernicus39; ideas about a heliocentric solar system), but they
> definitely didn't claim that he was a scientist.
>
> Meanwhile, I thought last night's episode about the age of the Earth and
> how that led to the discovery that lead was poisoning everyone (and
> ultimately its banning from pretty much everything) was pretty awesome.
>
>
for poor table manners. More seriously, he was more astrologer than
astronomer. So why include him at all but to pick at the modern trope of
the incompatibility faith & science? Even from a secular historian, the
simplistic distortions should be.... distasteful, but from anyone who
holds faith, reason, and history in equal regard could not be anything
but... disapproving, if not "indignant."
This captures my thoughts on it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/03/10/cosmos-pick-wrong-hero/
"…That depiction in the new Cosmos matches the standard textbook story of
Bruno, but it is misleading and in some ways downright wrong. For starters,
Bruno was not the first to link the idea of infinite space with the
infinite glory of God. That idea actually originated with Nicolas of Cusa,
a German philosopher who lived a century earlier (and who wrote about the
notion of infinite space even before Copernicus, though not in a detailed
astronomical way). Nicolas kept his infinite theology within the Catholic
framework, however, and suffered no ill consequences for his views.
Bruno also was not much of a Copernican, or by most accounts much of an
astronomer at all. His interests were theological, not physical, and his
astronomical writings are considered amateurish and confused…In Cosmos,
Tyson does carefully say that Bruno was not a scientist, and instead
describes that picture of infinite worlds as a “guess.” But Bruno was not
guessing. He was advancing his own, heretical theology, which goes a long
way to understanding the real reason that he was burned at the stake….
…Nor was Bruno the simple, humble figure shown on TV. A major reason he
moved around so much is that he was argumentative, sarcastic, and drawn to
controversy. He engaged in bitter academic disputes, many of which had
nothing to do with his cosmic framework. One example He fled France because
of a violent dispute about the proper use of a compass (seriously)."
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On Apr 21, 2014 5:01 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for bringing up the old topic here, but they didn't actually present
> Bruno as a scientist in the show at all. In fact, Tyson made it explicitly
> clear in the show that Bruno wasn't a scientist, and that it was probably
> just good luck (well, I guess it wasn't really good for him ultimately)
> that he happened to come to the right conclusion since he had no evidence
> to base his ideas on.
>
> I really don't get the level of indignation that people have about how
> Bruno was presented in Cosmos, and everyone that I've heard complaining
> about it seems to have missed the point, which was that ultimately he was a
> guy who was punished for thinking differently. Yes, they simplified the
> history of what happened somewhat (e.g. not really mentioning that he was a
> supporter of Copernicus39; ideas about a heliocentric solar system), but they
> definitely didn't claim that he was a scientist.
>
> Meanwhile, I thought last night's episode about the age of the Earth and
> how that led to the discovery that lead was poisoning everyone (and
> ultimately its banning from pretty much everything) was pretty awesome.
>
>