Quote:
Originally Posted by tiptap
Wow talk about your picking points. Galileo didn't think planets traveled in ellipses. Newton believed in transmutation of elements. There is plenty wrong with a lot of what early scientific thinkers brought forward in some of their ideas.
Bruno had bad ideas just like Newton. But he argued from a consistent acting natural process that was uniform (and for the time included evil spirits, demons and the notion of souls and who didn't at the time). He didn't accept something like Historical Science in which the past acted differently than the present that Mr. Hamm insists on. No the present informed the whole of existence. That is the essence of what science is about. It is looking to consistency not exceptions to inform our understanding. So you can nit pick about what he got wrong but that doesn't change the fact that the philosophy of Revealed Understanding is at odds with a Discoverable Understanding. And that is what I am defending.
|
Dude now you're just being an idiot. We are not talking about Bruno getting things wrong. We are talking about his entire methodology. You are obviously completely clueless on the subject matter yet you ramble on as if your baseless opinion of Bruno will somehow magically change historical facts. You actually sound quite a bit like Bruno himself!
Bruno fantasized about the nature of the universe then would pick and choose aspects of science or math that he felt propped up his beliefs. Bruno's belief system was NOT AT ALL based on discoverable understanding. You can say it over and over but why don;t you actually try reading up and you'll see he was just as much about "revealed" truths as the Church was... he just had a different set of beliefs than they did and he (just like the Church) was willing to pick and choose aspects of science to justify them.