Science Science is Cool.... - Page 113

Fish · 11:19 PM

This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.

Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.

Why should I care?:

tiptap · 03-11-2014, 03:39 PM

I understand that Giordano was a prick. Even to his supporters and friends and probably had some martyr complex or why be a monk. So I can understand how one can make an argument that he really isn't the most sympathetic person to bring to stage. But that is why he is important to defend, as a prick, because his approach was modern compared to the understanding of truth that he was judged by at his point in history.

The swirl in the blog world is just the echo chambers of those like yourself who want to claim the success of science but don't want to perverse your religious treading. And that is sort of ok except we get the huge push by religious dogma even today in the teaching within public schools. And it is in that light that this controversy is front and center today.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap

I understand that Giordano was a prick. Even to his supporters and friends and probably had some martyr complex or why be a monk. So I can understand how one can make an argument that he really isn't the most sympathetic person to bring to stage. But that is why he is important to defend, as a prick, because his approach was modern compared to the understanding of truth that he was judged by at his point in history.

Again, you are basing your opinion on the complete fiction that was shown in Cosmos. His approach was NOT modern. If the representation of Bruno was accurate I'd be right with you on why it makes sense to show him. I'm all for science over religion. I am not here to defend the Church in any way... I am here to defend FACTUAL HISTORY. Bruno didn't look at Copernicus and say "wow, that's great, let me build on the science".. he said "oh wow, I can use this to justify my magical theories about reality." That is no different than the "science" espoused by Creationists.

Bruno was a pure supernaturalist who tried to co opt some science to prop up his crazy ideas. Please explain to us how this is in any way good for science? Again, that is no different than a tarot card reader who tries to use quantum theory to legitimize their nonsense.

**alnorth** · 03-11-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Dude, come on. You KNOW it was a complete **** up. It wasn't just a little "off" it was an almost complete fabrication. That's fine for Bible Studies but that shit does NOT cut it when it comes to SCIENCE. It wasn't a parable or an allegory or a metaphor.. it was a LIE. There was absolutely no reason for it.

(and his beliefs on cosmology had nothing, ZERO, to do with him being tried for heresy.)

(and and... the idea that this vast number of scientific martyrs died at the hands of the Church is also make believe... there were certainly a few cases of persecution but for the most part that idea is fantasy land)

Well, that is not true since it was one of the charges made against him. Some have probably gone too far by painting him as a scientific martyr (it would be more accurate to call him a "free speech martyr"), but you seem to be taking the other incorrect extreme of saying his belief in many worlds had nothing to do with being tried. It was primarily religious, but not completely. The animated inquisition scene also made it pretty clear that it was mostly religious, but they didn't really have a reason to focus on that.

Your outrage on this is pretty overblown, too. The larger point on this is that the free exchange of ideas is necessary. The nit-picky point you are arguing could easily be addressed in the film by changing a couple minor lines.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

Well, that is not true since it was one of the charges made against him. Some have probably gone too far by painting him as a scientific martyr (it would be more accurate to call him a "free speech martyr"), but you seem to be taking the other incorrect extreme of saying his belief in many worlds had nothing to do with being tried.

Your outrage on this is pretty overblown, too. The larger point on this is that the free exchange of ideas is necessary. The nit-picky point point you are arguing could easily be edited into the film by removing a couple lines.

Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming certain things about Bruno that simply aren't true. You are correct that he was a free speech martyr... you are incorrect in thinking it had anything to do with real science. This would be like claiming that Ken Ham is persecuted by the media because of his scientific beliefs.

My outrage is not AT ALL overblown. Science is about FACTS and when you "fudge" on those facts you destroy your credibility. The entire segment on Bruno was fantasy... not just a few "lines" here and there.

Again, anyone who bothers to do the least bit of research can see this plain as day.

tiptap · 03-11-2014, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Again, you are basing your opinion on the complete fiction that was shown in Cosmos. His approach was NOT modern. If the representation of Bruno was accurate I'd be right with you on why it makes sense to show him. I'm all for science over religion. I am not here to defend the Church in any way... I am here to defend FACTUAL HISTORY. Bruno didn't look at Copernicus and say "wow, that's great, let me build on the science".. he said "oh wow, I can use this to justify my magical theories about reality." That is no different than the "science" espoused by Creationists.

Bruno was a pure supernaturalist who tried to co opt some science to prop up his crazy ideas. Please explain to us how this is in any way good for science? Again, that is no different than a tarot card reader who tries to use quantum theory to legitimize their nonsense.

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 that 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.

**alnorth** · 03-11-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming certain things about Bruno that simply aren't true. You are correct that he was a free speech martyr... you are incorrect in thinking it had anything to do with real science. This would be like claiming that Ken Ham is persecuted by the media because of his scientific beliefs.

My outrage is not AT ALL overblown. Science is about FACTS and when you "fudge" on those facts you destroy your credibility. The entire segment on Bruno was fantasy... not just a few "lines" here and there.

Again, anyone who bothers to do the least bit of research can see this plain as day.

I didn't claim that. Cosmos did not claim he was a scientist, either, I guess you inferred that through that whole martyr throwaway line that probably should not have been in there. Cosmos flat-out stated that he was not a scientist.

He was a spiritual guy who believed in things for no reason, and one of those things happened to be correct, and later condemned by the church. Their later actions on Galileo a few years later also help to confirm that they weren't ambivalent about astronomy.

Again, your outrage is really overblown here. You may have thought you heard things that weren't stated.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 05:55 PM

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.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

I didn't claim that. Cosmos did not claim he was a scientist, either, I guess you inferred that through that whole martyr throwaway line that probably should not have been in there. Cosmos flat-out stated that he was not a scientist.

He was a spiritual guy who believed in things for no reason, and one of those things happened to be correct, and later condemned by the church. Their later actions on Galileo a few years later also help to confirm that they weren't ambivalent about astronomy.

Again, your outrage is really overblown here. You may have thought you heard things that weren't stated.

No, I watched the show and sat amazed while a complete fantasy was shown. Yes, they claim he wasn't a scientist but they very clearly make him out to be a scientific martyr. They also lie about the circumstances of his life... and conveniently left out the context in which he promoted the few "guesses" he got right. It was a useless fantastical account that served no purpose but to undermine the credible of the show.

**alnorth** · 03-11-2014, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No, I watched the show and sat amazed while a complete fantasy was shown. Yes, they claim he wasn't a scientist but they very clearly make him out to be a scientific martyr. They also lie about the circumstances of his life... and conveniently left out the context in which he promoted the few "guesses" he got right. It was a useless fantastical account that served no purpose but to undermine the credible of the show.

I will grant you that they tried hard as hell to make the audience reach the conclusion that he was a wise guy who was burned for his scientific beliefs, though they chose their words very carefully so that nothing was actually untrue.

I knew a bit about Bruno and was surprised they'd use him, so I paid pretty close attention to what they were doing, and noted that they carefully made sure everything they stated was not false.

I have two problems with the scene. First, they should have called him a martyr to free speech, or left that line off altogether. Its one line though, nothing to get excited over.

My second problem is that their point would have been made far more effectively if they axed that whole Bruno scene and recounted the life of Galileo. I guess showing someone getting burned is more exciting than just mere house arrest, or perhaps they just wanted everyone to learn about Bruno.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

I will grant you that they tried hard as hell to make the audience reach the conclusion that he was a wise guy who was burned for his scientific beliefs, though they chose their words very carefully so that nothing was actually untrue.

I knew a bit about Bruno and was surprised they'd use him, so I paid pretty close attention to what they were doing, and noted that they carefully made sure everything they stated was not false.

I have two problems with the scene. First, they should have called him a martyr to free speech, or left that line off altogether. Its one line though, nothing to get excited over.

My second problem is that their point would have been made far more effectively if they axed that whole Bruno scene and recounted the life of Galileo. I guess showing someone getting burned is more exciting than just mere house arrest, or perhaps they just wanted everyone to learn about Bruno.

I can agree with most of this.

**AustinChief** · 03-11-2014, 06:28 PM

It just amazes me that people feel the need to defend a show for a piece of fantasy about a guy that was basically a Scientologist of his day.

-King- · 03-16-2014, 07:03 PM

Cosmos narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on FOX right now.

Fish · 03-17-2014, 02:56 PM

Happy St. Patty's day! Here's a nice drinking song to teach you how alcohol works.....

Lyrics:
In the year of our lord eighteen hundred and eleven
On March the seventeenth day
I will raise up a beer and I'll raise up a cheer
For Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Here's to brewers yeast, that humblest of all beasts
Producing carbon gas reducing acetaldehyde
But my friends that isn't all -- it makes ethyl alcohol
That is what the yeast excretes and that's what we imbibe

Anaerobic isolation
Alcoholic fermentation
NADH oxidation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

My intestinal wall absorbs that ethanol
And soon it passes through my blood-brain barrier
There's a girl in the next seat who I didn't think that sweet
But after a few drinks I want to marry her
I guess it's not surprising, my dopamine is rising
And my glutamate receptors are all shot
I'd surely be bemoaning all the extra serotonin
But my judgment is impaired and my confidence is not

Allosteric modulation
No Long Term Potentiation
Hastens my inebriation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

When ethanol is in me, some shows up in my kidneys
And inhibits vasopressin by degrees
A decrease in aquaporins hinders water re-absorption
And pretty soon I really have to pee
Well my liver breaks it down so my body can rebound
By my store of glycogen is soon depleted
And tomorrow when I'm sober I will also be hungover
Cause I flushed electrolytes that my nerves and muscles needed

Diuretic activation
Urination urination
Urination dehydration
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

CHORDS

Intro:
D DAG / bm A
D D A G / bm A G D
G D A G / G D G A
G D A bm / G D A D

Pre - chorus:
G D A bm / G D A

Chorus (Li-Diddly-I):
G D A bm A
G D A D

Verse:
D DAG / Bm A
D D A G / Bm A G D
G D A G / bm A
G D A bm / G D A D

**hometeam** · 03-17-2014, 03:00 PM

Cant believe this thread hasn't been updated with this yet, its all over the place, top of reddit etc.

Quote:

Major Discovery: 'Smoking Gun' for Universe's Incredible Big Bang Expansion Found

http://www.space.com/25078-universe-...discovery.html

**alnorth** · 03-17-2014, 05:38 PM

The ratings for Cosmos have been pretty unusual. Overall, the old people just aren't watching it, Cosmos finished last out of the big 4. Resurrection won all across the board, but the Good Wife and Believe finished ahead of Cosmos among all viewers.

However, the young people (age 18-49) who the advertisers care about are watching, and it finished comfortably 2nd among that highly-prized demographic. The Cosmos folks are basically counting that as a success and cheering, since advertisers don't really care very much about the older group.

05-21-2012, 09:43 PM
Fish Ain't no relax! Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2308919	Science is Cool.... This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice. Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science. Why should I care?: Last edited by Fish; 05-05-2021 at 11:19 PM..
Posts: 47,488

03-11-2014, 03:39 PM	#1681
tiptap Is this it? Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $10007847	I understand that Giordano was a prick. Even to his supporters and friends and probably had some martyr complex or why be a monk. So I can understand how one can make an argument that he really isn't the most sympathetic person to bring to stage. But that is why he is important to defend, as a prick, because his approach was modern compared to the understanding of truth that he was judged by at his point in history. The swirl in the blog world is just the echo chambers of those like yourself who want to claim the success of science but don't want to perverse your religious treading. And that is sort of ok except we get the huge push by religious dogma even today in the teaching within public schools. And it is in that light that this controversy is front and center today. __________________ Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken Last edited by tiptap; 03-11-2014 at 03:48 PM..
Posts: 5,134

03-11-2014, 06:28 PM	#1691
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $2699112	It just amazes me that people feel the need to defend a show for a piece of fantasy about a guy that was basically a Scientologist of his day.
Posts: 19,495

03-16-2014, 07:03 PM	#1692
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $2515743	Cosmos narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on FOX right now. __________________ 🏁
Posts: 63,872

03-17-2014, 02:56 PM	#1693
Fish Ain't no relax! Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2308919	Happy St. Patty's day! Here's a nice drinking song to teach you how alcohol works..... Lyrics: In the year of our lord eighteen hundred and eleven On March the seventeenth day I will raise up a beer and I'll raise up a cheer For Saccharomyces cerevisiae Here's to brewers yeast, that humblest of all beasts Producing carbon gas reducing acetaldehyde But my friends that isn't all -- it makes ethyl alcohol That is what the yeast excretes and that's what we imbibe Anaerobic isolation Alcoholic fermentation NADH oxidation Give me a beer [CHORUS] My intestinal wall absorbs that ethanol And soon it passes through my blood-brain barrier There's a girl in the next seat who I didn't think that sweet But after a few drinks I want to marry her I guess it's not surprising, my dopamine is rising And my glutamate receptors are all shot I'd surely be bemoaning all the extra serotonin But my judgment is impaired and my confidence is not Allosteric modulation No Long Term Potentiation Hastens my inebriation Give me a beer [CHORUS] When ethanol is in me, some shows up in my kidneys And inhibits vasopressin by degrees A decrease in aquaporins hinders water re-absorption And pretty soon I really have to pee Well my liver breaks it down so my body can rebound By my store of glycogen is soon depleted And tomorrow when I'm sober I will also be hungover Cause I flushed electrolytes that my nerves and muscles needed Diuretic activation Urination urination Urination dehydration Give me a beer [CHORUS] CHORDS Intro: D DAG / bm A D D A G / bm A G D G D A G / G D G A G D A bm / G D A D Pre - chorus: G D A bm / G D A Chorus (Li-Diddly-I): G D A bm A G D A D Verse: D DAG / Bm A D D A G / Bm A G D G D A G / bm A G D A bm / G D A D __________________
Posts: 47,488

03-17-2014, 05:38 PM	#1695
alnorth . Join Date: Dec 2002 Casino cash: $57176239	The ratings for Cosmos have been pretty unusual. Overall, the old people just aren't watching it, Cosmos finished last out of the big 4. Resurrection won all across the board, but the Good Wife and Believe finished ahead of Cosmos among all viewers. However, the young people (age 18-49) who the advertisers care about are watching, and it finished comfortably 2nd among that highly-prized demographic. The Cosmos folks are basically counting that as a success and cheering, since advertisers don't really care very much about the older group. __________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry Last edited by alnorth; 03-17-2014 at 05:44 PM..
Posts: 36,130