If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Federalist)   I've got a blog where I can say anything, checkmate science   (thefederalist.com) divider line 113
    More: Dumbass, Giordano Bruno, global warming, first to invent, Brannon Braga, greenhouse effect, other things being equal, acid rain, pseudosciences  
•       •       •

4065 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:35 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-14 02:03:00 PM  
WTF is with #5? Did he miss the part where that year is just a simplified representation of billions of years?
 
2014-03-14 02:05:34 PM  

Feepit: He was also flogging around a bunch of craziness about Egyptian gods, mysticism, and other nonsense, which ultimately served to undermine Copernicus' ideas.


Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That his belief in the Copernican system wasn't the ONLY thing used against him at trial doesn't mean it WASN'T used against him. And since Cosmos isn't a theology show, the charges relating to him believing pantheistic nonsense instead of monotheistic nonsense are immaterial and had no place in the show, so were not included.

It's a one hour show. They're not going to cover every last facet of the man just because they mentioned him in relation to the larger topic at hand. If you want a full rundown of his entire life and the details of every charge against him there are books on the topic, go read one. However, since this was just a segment about how even an amateur with no formal training can revolutionize scientific understanding with just an idea and persistence, Bruno, and the relevant parts of his life, were adequately and accurately portrayed.
What it comes down to at the end, however, is that every religion on the planet has committed barbaric acts throughout history. Simply acknowledging those facts is not done to hurt that religion's pwecious wittle feewings. Religious people need to own up to and make peace with their own histories and biatching and whining like crybabies every time the topic comes up in historical discussion is not how you do that. We're not going to gloss over or ignore the Crusades or Bruno or ritualistic sacrifice or 9/11 just because some people might want to pretend they never happened.

They happened. Discussion of them is sometimes appropriate. Get over it.
 
2014-03-14 02:10:50 PM  

Son of Thunder: Except for the part where it didn't cost him his life. Going around telling everybody to drop Jesus and switch to a Greco-Egyptian mystery-religion cost him his life. Advocating Copernican astronomy was not a heresy in 1600, and the notion of Bruno as a free-thought martyr is entirely a construction of 19th-Century revisionists, no longer taken seriously by actual historians.


His Copernican beliefs, despite not being officially rejected or banned by the church, were used against him at trial alongside the other charges. In particular, they took great offense to his refusal to recant his teachings about multiple worlds populated by other living beings because it threw into question humanity's special place in the universe and need for a redeemer.

Your participation in this thread so far has been marked entirely by deceit. Again, I ask, why should anybody continue talking to you if dishonesty is going to be your only position?

Further more, EVERYTHING that happened to Bruno is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would make a person a "free thought martyr". Even if we took your dishonesty for truth he was still burned alive for saying things an authority didn't want him to say. It doesn't really get any more "free thought martyr" than being killed because people don't want to let you speak.
 
2014-03-14 02:34:15 PM  
From this guy's author profile on Amazon:
Hank Campbell is the creator of Science 2.0 and co-author of Science Left Behind. Prior to founding Science 2.0 he was a senior executive at various physics software companies, including one that resulted in an IPO.

WOW
 
2014-03-14 02:38:55 PM  

skozlaw: Your participation in this thread so far has been marked entirely by deceit

reliance on actual history instead of Victorian polemical fabrications.

FTFY.
 
2014-03-14 02:56:20 PM  

Codenamechaz: I somehow got to number 5

Wherein he unironically presents an argument that the universe wasn't created in a year, as if he lives in a world where metaphors and comparisons do not exist



His other points were bad enough, but at least they could be argued to some extent.  Number 5 is creationist-level willful ignorance.
 
2014-03-14 03:04:46 PM  

skozlaw: That his belief in the Copernican system wasn't the ONLY thing used against him at trial doesn't mean it WASN'T used against him


So if a newspaper reported that a man was sentenced to capital punishment for burglary, yet failed to mention the nine murders he committed, that would be fair and accurate in your mind?
 
2014-03-14 03:11:07 PM  

skozlaw: What it comes down to at the end, however, is that every religion on the planet has committed barbaric acts throughout history. Simply acknowledging those facts is not done to hurt that religion's pwecious wittle feewings. Religious people need to own up to and make peace with their own histories and biatching and whining like crybabies every time the topic comes up in historical discussion is not how you do that. We're not going to gloss over or ignore the Crusades or Bruno or ritualistic sacrifice or 9/11 just because some people might want to pretend they never happened.

They happened. Discussion of them is sometimes appropriate. Get over it.


Yeah, bad things happened in the past. That isn't what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether Cosmos accurately presented the rationale behind Bruno's imprisonment and execution. By highlighting what was, in the eyes of the church at the time, his lesser crime, and pretty much presenting it as a sole cause of his mistreatment was grossly misleading.
 
2014-03-14 03:30:56 PM  

Feepit: skozlaw: What it comes down to at the end, however, is that every religion on the planet has committed barbaric acts throughout history. Simply acknowledging those facts is not done to hurt that religion's pwecious wittle feewings. Religious people need to own up to and make peace with their own histories and biatching and whining like crybabies every time the topic comes up in historical discussion is not how you do that. We're not going to gloss over or ignore the Crusades or Bruno or ritualistic sacrifice or 9/11 just because some people might want to pretend they never happened.

They happened. Discussion of them is sometimes appropriate. Get over it.

Yeah, bad things happened in the past. That isn't what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether Cosmos accurately presented the rationale behind Bruno's imprisonment and execution. By highlighting what was, in the eyes of the church at the time, his lesser crime, and pretty much presenting it as a sole cause of his mistreatment was grossly misleading.


He was imprisoned and executed for thinking differently and telling other people his beliefs.

It doesn't matter what the beliefs were, or their legality at the time. He was imprisoned and executed for his thoughts and beliefs.

That's the point they were making, you could be murdered for saying what you believe in.
 
2014-03-14 03:33:48 PM  
 
2014-03-14 03:33:55 PM  
Why can we hear his spaceship when he is exploring the cosmos?

Are you supposed to be INSIDE the spaceship in question? Or are you hovering beside it? If you are inside it, then you're going to hear it through the air inside his spaceship. If you are somehow hovering outside the spaceship, riding along beside it, I guess you are going to have to take point off of Cosmos for that one too...

In other words, you can hear his spaceship because it's a farking rendering, you stupid twit.
 
2014-03-14 03:34:49 PM  

Joe USer: He was imprisoned and executed for thinking differently and telling other people his beliefs.


Yes, and that was wrong, and still has jack-all to do with science.
 
2014-03-14 03:36:26 PM  

Feepit: So if a newspaper ...


The Cosmos is not a newspaper nor was it reporting on an accused criminal. It was also not a documentary about Giordano Bruno, a historical discussion of the Protestant and Catholic power structures of the time or a documentary about the era.

You're complaining that a one hour show about science only discussed the man as was relevant to his place within the history of science and didn't meander into discussions of pantheism, the workings of the Inquisition, his religious backstory as a friar and the complete stem to stern details of the trial (which aren't even all available).

Cosmos presented a brief, accurate representation of the portions of Bruno's life that were relevant to the overarching point of an amateur's ability to contribute to the scientific world through curiosity and persistence. That it omitted details that were not relevant to the topic of the show is to be expected, otherwise it would not have been the Cosmos with a five segment about the man, it would have been a one hour documentary about Giordano Bruno with a five segment about the cosmos.

If you want to know all about Giordano Bruno, go find a book about Giordano Bruno. The entirety of his life was beyond the scope of the show.

Furthermore, the relentless whining from the religious and historical revisionists who are so pearl-clutching upset about the segment is a greater condemnation of what the church did to the man than what that segment could have possibly managed if it had actually been trying to do that.

Feepit: his lesser crime


It doesn't matter. Even if it was his least of his "crimes" (which it wasn't by a long shot in the eyes of the Inquisition) the fact remains that the church tried him over it, now doesn't it? And it was part of his conviction, now wasn't it?
 
2014-03-14 03:50:41 PM  
skozlaw: You're complaining that a one hour show about science only discussed the man as was relevant to his place within the history of science

My complaint is that someone who was not a scientist, did nothing to further science and arguably set it back by nearly transforming a legitimate theory into an occult belief, had nothing to do with science ... was used in a show supposedly about science as an example of someone persecuted for the sake of science.
 
2014-03-14 03:53:45 PM  

Feepit: skozlaw: You're complaining that a one hour show about science only discussed the man as was relevant to his place within the history of science

My complaint is that someone who was not a scientist, did nothing to further science and arguably set it back by nearly transforming a legitimate theory into an occult belief, had nothing to do with science ... was used in a show supposedly about science as an example of someone persecuted for the sake of science.


I mean, ffs, genuine supporters of science should find it offensive that Bruno was depicted as a martyr for science when the man hijacked Copernicus' theory to rationalize his particular religious dogma.
 
2014-03-14 03:53:52 PM  

Son of Thunder: Joe USer: He was imprisoned and executed for thinking differently and telling other people his beliefs.

Yes, and that was wrong, and still has jack-all to do with science.


Well, except that's a part of the entire concept of science. You observe, you theorize, and you tell others. If you're going to get burned alive for any part of that, it cripples science.
 
2014-03-14 03:55:23 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: All of Bruno's "crimes" were various forms of blasphemy.


According to the learned intellects populating the thread, Bruno's crimes are in two categories: (1) irrelevant religious stuff, and (2) FOR SCIENCE!

Reality is closer to your statement, though. Bruno's trial was about religious stuff, and, as I said earlier, has jack-all to do with science.  This makes it disingenuous in the extreme to use (as many are) as an alleged case study in the debunked Conflict Thesis.
 
2014-03-14 03:56:27 PM  

Joe USer: You observe, you theorize, and you tell others.


He didn't observe or theorize. He took Copernicus' theory, ran it through his religious pollution machine, and spat out crazy. Then he told others.
 
2014-03-14 04:01:57 PM  

nmrsnr: give me doughnuts: Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon-dioxide.
Water vapor measures in at 20 ppm, or 0.002%
There is more argon or sulfur-dioxide than water.

Now. Water vapor occasionally breaks down to O2 and H2, when it does this, the Hydrogen gas is light enough to escape Venus's gravity, leaving forever. There is very little Hydrogen left on Venus to make water vapor from anymore.
But don't trust me (or my bachelor's degree in astronomy):

Studies have suggested that billions of years ago, the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but, after a period of 600 million to several billion years,[43] a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[44]



Read the abstract and the first few pages of that article. Cool stuff. Or rather not so cool with a 1500 K steam atmosphere keeping parts of the planet's surface nice and molten
Also, kudos on the astronomy degree. I was always interested in the subject matter, but the math was too much. My brain flamed out fairly early in Calc-III.
 
2014-03-14 04:06:57 PM  

Feepit: Joe USer: You observe, you theorize, and you tell others.

He didn't observe or theorize. He took Copernicus' theory, ran it through his religious pollution machine, and spat out crazy. Then he told others.


Now I know why this case sounds so familiar.  Replace "Copernicus' theory" with "quantum mechanics", and I might be at least a bit sympathetic to the idea of burning Deepak Chopra at the stake.
 
2014-03-14 04:09:02 PM  

Feepit: My complaint is that someone who was not a scientist, did nothing to further science and arguably set it back by nearly transforming a legitimate theory into an occult belief, had nothing to do with science ... was used in a show supposedly about science as an example of someone persecuted for the sake of science.


No, your complaint is exactly what I said. A thirteen hour series devoted less than ten minutes to an interesting footnote in the Copernican model in order to end on the point that you don't have to be a scientist to help move science forward, just inquisitive and devoted.

If you want to know about the complicated story of Bruno, his travels and his fate, go get a book about Bruno, his travels and his fate. Don't sit here and whine about a cartoon that used a distilled and truncated version of his history as a small portion of a larger story to make the point that dedication and inquisitiveness can be more important to science than being an actual scientist.

Again, the level of angst from the religious over this stupid cartoon is a far more damning indictment of the guilt of the church in this particular episode of its history than anything Cosmos could have managed even had it been trying. Bruno was murdered by Catholics. End of story. Also, not the point of the segment, but since you guys seem to really want to talk about how the church murdered him....
 
2014-03-14 04:16:25 PM  

skozlaw: No, your complaint is exactly what I said.


Sorry, you don't get to super-impose the argument you wish I was making over the one I am actually making.

skozlaw: A thirteen hour series devoted less than ten minutes to something entirely irrelevant that had nothing to do with science -- if it wanted to discuss Copernicus, it should've discussed Copernicus.


FTFY.


skozlaw: Again, the level of angst from the religious


My complaint has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a failure to accurately portray history. It makes me sad when I encounter something I have high hopes for fail to meet the bar of basic honesty in its presentation.

skozlaw: Bruno was murdered by Catholics.


Yes, and that is tragic, and Catholics suck. However, Cosmos isn't suppose to be about the history of the Catholic church; rather, it is suppose to be about science, something Bruno wasn't even remotely affiliated with.
 
2014-03-14 04:29:32 PM  

Feepit: Cosmos isn't suppose to be about the history of the Catholic church; rather, it is suppose to be about science, something Bruno wasn't even remotely affiliated with.


Are you gonna get this butthurt every time Cosmos mentions someone who wasn't a scientist?
 
2014-03-14 04:34:28 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Are you gonna get this butthurt every time Cosmos mentions someone who wasn't a scientist?


I'll probably stop watching it if it continues to put forth unrelated and historically inaccurate material, just like I no longer watch the History or Discovery channels.

/ancient aliens!
 
2014-03-14 04:38:51 PM  

Your blog? It blows goats. On Venus. For an entire cosmic year.

 
2014-03-14 04:41:43 PM  

TheOmni: I kind of agree that the Giordano Bruno portion of Cosmos was a bit overstated,


Sure. But Gallileo was forced to recant as well. Bruno just had pride of place.
 
2014-03-14 04:56:00 PM  

ManateeGag: we need someone to pump gas and bag groceries.


Well, when was the last time you saw a full-service gas pump or a grocery checkout line with an actual bagger and not just a cashier?
 
2014-03-14 05:05:26 PM  
I read all the way to the last point and that is definitely the best part...

Oddly, a number of religious critics, Tyson included, insist that too many religious people believe the Book of Genesis is taken literally by people who read the Bible. Unless we accept that figurative comparisons help make large ideas manageable, a year is no more accurate than six days - it is instead a completely arbitrary metric invented to show some context for how things evolved.
It seems odd to be critical when religion does it and then invent a new timescale for how the universe came to be. It's almost like we are to believe that short timescales are opiates for the masses.


The part Beavis misses here is that Tyson explicitly stated that we were going to analyze the year because it made it easier to understand, but regularly discussed the extreme time scales to try and understand the universe.

He seems to admonish Tyson for generalizing the book of genesis when there are, in fact, many people that take the 6 days thing as real. He brushes it off as though no person would really believe such things, so Tyson is wrong to use it to help people understand. But, people DO believe it. There are countless examples of young earth creationism that explicitly talk about how Genesis is right word-for-word.

And, even if you ignore the small percentage of nutjobs that take it as an exact word, there are still far too many creationists that completely ignore evidence pointing to 14 billion years and use the 6 days to describe eras or whatever is needed to make the earth 6000 years old.

The time scales ARE used to explain things to the masses. It's the same reason the whole "if earth were the size of this tennis ball" discussions are used because people can't f*cking imagine what 200 million miles is. It is just a number to them.

Trying to poke holes in the program as a hole because there were sounds coming from a spaceship is petty...but trying to paint Tyson as just as evil as religious nuts for using scale to describe time when people actually BELIEVE in literal time of that size is laughable.
 
2014-03-14 05:14:06 PM  

Son of Thunder: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: All of Bruno's "crimes" were various forms of blasphemy.

According to the learned intellects populating the thread, Bruno's crimes are in two categories: (1) irrelevant religious stuff, and (2) FOR SCIENCE!

Reality is closer to your statement, though. Bruno's trial was about religious stuff, and, as I said earlier, has jack-all to do with science.  This makes it disingenuous in the extreme to use (as many are) as an alleged case study in the debunked Conflict Thesis.


Except that at the time scientific matters WERE taken as religious matters.  But that doesn't matter to you because the only thing you're concerned about is spewing your ignorance at anyone in range and doubling down on it every time you are proven wrong.
 
2014-03-14 05:32:57 PM  

dukeblue219: ManateeGag: we need someone to pump gas and bag groceries.

Well, when was the last time you saw a full-service gas pump


Oregon and New Jersey

or a grocery checkout line with an actual bagger and not just a cashier?

Every time I go grocery shopping.
 
2014-03-14 05:40:45 PM  

neversubmit: DarnoKonrad: RoxtarRyan: Author is trolling, right? Please tell me he's trolling for hits. There's no way anyone can be this ignorant.

he's definitely a troll, but I can't see how that excuses it.

This!

It's just plain weird either he didn't write that or if he did he has a brain tumor.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-14 06:17:20 PM  

StrangeQ: Son of Thunder: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: All of Bruno's "crimes" were various forms of blasphemy.

According to the learned intellects populating the thread, Bruno's crimes are in two categories: (1) irrelevant religious stuff, and (2) FOR SCIENCE!

Reality is closer to your statement, though. Bruno's trial was about religious stuff, and, as I said earlier, has jack-all to do with science.  This makes it disingenuous in the extreme to use (as many are) as an alleged case study in the debunked Conflict Thesis.

Except that at the time scientific matters WERE taken as religious matters.  But that doesn't matter to you because the only thing you're concerned about is spewing your ignorance at anyone in range and doubling down on it every time you are proven wrong.


So, because scientific matters were taken as religious matters, preaching hermetic mysticism is science. My goodness, you're such an intellectual heavyweight.
 
2014-03-14 06:24:32 PM  

Secret Agent X23: TheOmni: But the sound in space section of this article seems to be thrown in so that it could have one thing correct to try and lend credence to the rest of his absurd ramblings. And I don't even know where to begin on that last part. Does he not know how metaphors work?

I think that if he's serious about the sound in space thing, he has a world-class case of Asperger's, one worthy of lengthy study at a major research facility, a book, and a movie of the week.

If he's serious about that last part, he's probably suffered a stroke.


Wait, do you mean you don't here new age music like Vangelis "Heaven and Hell" while traveling through the universe? Carl Sagan you have made me believe in nothing now!
 
2014-03-14 06:39:45 PM  

Feepit: However, Cosmos isn't suppose to be about the history of the Catholic church


Yes, that's why it contained no segments about the history of the Catholic church. A fact you deliberately refuse to acknowledge while focusing on less than 1.1% of the series that only "means" what you claim it means if you completely ignore the entire lesson you're supposed to take from it.

If you want to live in your silly little delusion crafted by your deliberate misrepresentation of 5 minutes of prime time TV, fine, but that's your problem and I won't waste any more of my time on it.
 
2014-03-14 06:42:52 PM  

skozlaw: Feepit: However, Cosmos isn't suppose to be about the history of the Catholic church

Yes, that's why it contained no segments about the history of the Catholic church. A fact you deliberately refuse to acknowledge while focusing on less than 1.1% of the series that only "means" what you claim it means if you completely ignore the entire lesson you're supposed to take from it.

If you want to live in your silly little delusion crafted by your deliberate misrepresentation of 5 minutes of prime time TV, fine, but that's your problem and I won't waste any more of my time on it.


Well... bye.
 
2014-03-14 07:41:43 PM  

Feepit: Joe USer: You observe, you theorize, and you tell others.

He didn't observe or theorize. He took Copernicus' theory, ran it through his religious pollution machine, and spat out crazy. Then he told others.


So?

The show is called Cosmos and not Science. The Cosmos the concept that The Universe is ordered.

The man had ideas about the ordered Universe, they burned him alive because of those ideas. It's factual, it's in the show and there's nothing that can or will be done about it. If it insulted or upset people, perhaps they shouldn't associate with a group that burned people alive.
 
2014-03-14 07:44:03 PM  

skozlaw: Yes, that's why it contained no segments about the history of the Catholic church. A fact you deliberately refuse to acknowledge while focusing on less than 1.1% of the series that only "means" what you claim it means if you completely ignore the entire lesson you're supposed to take from it.

If you want to live in your silly little delusion crafted by your deliberate misrepresentation of 5 minutes of prime time TV, fine, but that's your problem and I won't waste any more of my time on it.


You are honestly an idiot if you think you can have a ten minute segment about a man who was persecuted by the inquisition -- the primary focus of that segment, by the way -- not be about the history of the Catholic church. Bruno's ideas and their impact could have been discussed without outright lying about why he was imprisoned and murdered, but, rather than talk about science and the universe, the writers of Cosmos decided to concoct a boring and historically fallacious drama depicting Bruno as some sort of hippy martyr.

You are advocating the worst kind of informational cherry picking in a hapless and foolish effort to support your claim that Cosmos was only about science and that is why they neglected to mention the other "irrelevant" so-called heresies that ruined Bruno, such as:

* denying the trinity
* denying the divinity of Christ
* denying Jesus as Christ
* denying the virgin birth
* denying transubstantiation
* advocating metempsychosis and the passage people's souls into animals
* advocating magic and sorcery

But no, you are absolutely right. The nail in the coffin, the straw that broke the camel's back, the ultimate reason he was put to death ... heliocentrism. Not those other paltry things that didn't bother the Catholic church in the slightest. The reason was Heliocentrism and the idea of other worlds, just like what was asserted on Cosmos, even though it is as dishonest and stupid as claiming there is no reason to suspect AGW because water vapor alone is sufficient to warm the atmosphere.

You are a zealot and an idiot who supports intellectual fraud.

/plonk
 
2014-03-14 07:57:20 PM  
Here is a good article about how Bruno was misrepresented in Cosmos, which even got a response from a co-author of Cosmos. It clearly lays out what was wrong with the segment.
 
2014-03-14 08:02:44 PM  

Joe USer: Feepit: Joe USer: You observe, you theorize, and you tell others.

He didn't observe or theorize. He took Copernicus' theory, ran it through his religious pollution machine, and spat out crazy. Then he told others.

So?

The show is called Cosmos and not Science. The Cosmos the concept that The Universe is ordered.

The man had ideas about the ordered Universe, they burned him alive because of those ideas. It's factual, it's in the show and there's nothing that can or will be done about it. If it insulted or upset people, perhaps they shouldn't associate with a group that burned people alive.


And now Cosmos is not a science show? Wow. And here I thought there was a limit to the desperate spinning I'd see from the Bruno Booster Brigade. Silly me.
 
2014-03-14 08:14:48 PM  
yourblogsucks.jpg
 
2014-03-14 08:26:36 PM  

Feepit: skozlaw: You're complaining that a one hour show about science only discussed the man as was relevant to his place within the history of science

My complaint is that someone who was not a scientist, did nothing to further science and arguably set it back by nearly transforming a legitimate theory into an occult belief, had nothing to do with science ... was used in a show supposedly about science as an example of someone persecuted for the sake of science.


Science isn't a specific subject matter, it's a method of investigation and an associated paradigm.

In the early years, most scientists and researchers dipped into "occult beliefs" because the only way to tell whether magical thinking etc is legit by the assumption of empiricism is to  test it.  Hell, Isaac Newton was considered at one time one of the great  Alchemists and he wrote a textbook on what is essentially functional magic at one point.

Just because some lines of inquiry don't pan out doesn't make them not science... in fact, 90% of things not working out  is what makes it science.

This is the kind of thing that an (I'm assuming) adult should not be ignorant of, it's a pretty vital piece of western culture.  Science started out with 8000 years of accumulated bullshiat that it had to drive through before it could get to the point of new observations, deal with it.
 
2014-03-14 08:49:49 PM  

TheOmni: I kind of agree that the Giordano Bruno portion of Cosmos was a bit overstated, but not a crazy big deal


Yeah, but it almost entirely false. Yes, Bruno imagined that other stars had planets and he was burned at the stake (not for believing that), but that's about the only thing that was factual about what they said.


MrBallou: You realize that this idiot probably would argue that the so-called "greenhouse effect" isn't responsible for keeping greenhouses warm, either.


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-03-14 08:50:39 PM  

namatad: comparing scientists is a fools game ... bruno vs kepler etc etc etc ...


Bruno was not a scientist.
 
2014-03-14 08:59:28 PM  
I was happily(?) reading that blog when my hand directed the mouse to close the tab.

Apparently my hand is smarter than I am (after a few gins).
 
2014-03-14 09:01:35 PM  
Oops. Should have read the whole thread first.
 
2014-03-14 09:06:23 PM  

Son of Thunder: Joe USer: Feepit: Joe USer: You observe, you theorize, and you tell others.

He didn't observe or theorize. He took Copernicus' theory, ran it through his religious pollution machine, and spat out crazy. Then he told others.

So?

The show is called Cosmos and not Science. The Cosmos the concept that The Universe is ordered.

The man had ideas about the ordered Universe, they burned him alive because of those ideas. It's factual, it's in the show and there's nothing that can or will be done about it. If it insulted or upset people, perhaps they shouldn't associate with a group that burned people alive.

And now Cosmos is not a science show? Wow. And here I thought there was a limit to the desperate spinning I'd see from the Bruno Booster Brigade. Silly me.


It's a show about the universe. That means it's science based. It doesn't mean it's a show only about science and scientists.

Furthermore, I'd rather join the Bruno Booster Brigade then the Murderers Booster Brigade that you appear to be defending.
 
2014-03-14 09:07:59 PM  

Feepit: Here is a good article about how Bruno was misrepresented in Cosmos, which even got a response from a co-author of Cosmos. It clearly lays out what was wrong with the segment.


The reply by the Cosmos writer makes an excellent case that they should not have devoted 10 minutes to Bruno, but they should have discussed the views of the other Copernicans to give an idea about how the view of the universe evolved. If the show had talked about what the article talks about then it would have been miles better.
 
2014-03-14 09:08:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: This is the kind of thing that an (I'm assuming) adult should not be ignorant of


Nor should they be ignorant of the fact that Bruno's contemporaries did not consider him a legitimate actor in the field of astronomy, as he based his notions on dogma rather than empiricism, unlike actual Copernicans such as Digges, Kepler, and Galileo.

So while you can argue that there is a rich history of valuable information not derived by not employing modern scientific techniques, but by what was available at the time, that argument does not apply to Bruno.
 
2014-03-14 09:13:07 PM  

Joe USer: Furthermore, I'd rather join the Bruno Booster Brigade then the Murderers Booster Brigade that you appear to be defending.


Please point me to where someone claimed Bruno's murder was anything but a horrible travesty.
 
2014-03-14 09:16:10 PM  

Feepit: Joe USer: Furthermore, I'd rather join the Bruno Booster Brigade then the Murderers Booster Brigade that you appear to be defending.

Please point me to where someone claimed Bruno's murder was anything but a horrible travesty.


You're right, that was over the line. My apologies to Son of Thunder.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report