29 Sep '08 10:45>
What, if anything, was his contribution to science?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNone! The guy was a complete lunatic and had some ideas that were heretic at the time that turned out to be true. But he had no scientific method, yes i know I'm being anachronistic and unfair here, and that was it. Copernicus did a lot of work on what we consider to be scientific nowadays and in a scientific manner too. But all of this Giordano lacked.
What, if anything, was his contribution to science?
Originally posted by adam warlockI think he really pissed off a bunch of people having nothing to do with his cosmology.
None! The guy was a complete lunatic and had some ideas that were heretic at the time that turned out to be true. But he had no scientific method, yes i know I'm being anachronistic and unfair here, and that was it. Copernicus did a lot of work on what we consider to be scientific nowadays and in a scientific manner too. But all of this Giordano lacked.
Originally posted by adam warlockHmm, perhaps I should have said "influence" not "contribution". According to a certain perspective, Bruno's only claim to fame was being martyred; had that not happened, he would have been utterly forgotten. Of course that isn't true -- he influenced Spinoza and Leibniz. I'm just wondering whether any of his thought rubbed off on science in any way.
None! The guy was a complete lunatic and had some ideas that were heretic at the time that turned out to be true. But he had no scientific method, yes i know I'm being anachronistic and unfair here, and that was it. Copernicus did a lot of work on what we consider to be scientific nowadays and in a scientific manner too. But all of this Giordano lacked.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHe argued that the Cosmos had to be infinite and that there had to be an infinite number of other populated planets. This went again Christian's doctrine of the time and the amalgam that was the conceptual models of Christianity and Socratic/Ptolemaic models that ruled the way most people thought about the Universe back in the days. Until now I didn't know he had some kind of influence over Leibniz and Spinoza. I guess his influence was more on the metaphysical realm than anything else. of course Science has to do with metaphysics too but I really don't know how Bruno's influence on Leibniz helped shape his understanding of the world surrounding him.
Hmm, perhaps I should have said "influence" not "contribution". According to a certain perspective, Bruno's only claim to fame was being martyred; had that not happened, he would have been utterly forgotten. Of course that isn't true -- he influenced Spinoza and Leibniz. I'm just wondering whether any of his thought rubbed off on science in any way.
...[text shortened]... e hand, Bruno's interest in memory is emphasised; on the other, his work in mathematics.
Originally posted by adam warlockHis work was based on a long tradition of mnemotechnics stretching back to classical times. Frances Yates has written some good books about him (I'm reading "The Art of Memory" in which he features extensively). There's also a book on his maths by Gizzi that I haven't got. He was a firebrand, a visionary, but not a lunatic.
The truth about Giordano Bruno is that he was a lunatic. From what I've read from him (which isn't much but isn't naught)he gave no rational argument to support his views.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageKepler also was a lunatic. 😉
His work was based on a long tradition of mnemotechnics stretching back to classical times. Frances Yates has written some good books about him (I'm reading "The Art of Memory" in which he features extensively). There's also a book on his maths by Gizzi that I haven't got. He was a firebrand, a visionary, but not a lunatic.
Originally posted by adam warlockI guess you'd include Newton in the lunatic throng. Fair enough, they were all a bit nuts.
Kepler also was a lunatic. ;.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo did Bruno's memory methods work?
I guess you'd include Newton in the lunatic throng. Fair enough, they were all a bit nuts.
There is a chapter towards the end of the book on scientific method; haven't got there yet.
The stuff on memory systems is fascinating in its own right.
Reading around this stuff I picked up on something odd: Bacon steered clear of mathematics because he feared it would taint him with magic by association.
Crazy times.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI guess you'd include Newton in the lunatic throng. Fair enough, they were all a bit nuts.
I guess you'd include Newton in the lunatic throng. Fair enough, they were all a bit nuts.
There is a chapter towards the end of the book on scientific method; haven't got there yet.
The stuff on memory systems is fascinating in its own right.
Reading around this stuff I picked up on something odd: Bacon steered clear of mathematics because he feared it would taint him with magic by association.
Crazy times.
Originally posted by adam warlockThe book comes with some illustrations and a fold-out memory map that makes it worth buying.
I think I'll have to downl... I mean buy the book and have a look at it. It seems to be interesting and in accord with things I like to know about..
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn that case I'll have a look at it in paper format. Just not now cause I'm a cheap b@stard!
The book comes with some illustrations and a fold-out memory map that makes it worth buying.
Realising the incredible difference between the Renaissance and modern times has made me keen to try to understand it. In some ways it's easier to relate to the Middle Ages than the Renaissance.
Originally posted by adam warlockI'll lend you my copy if you come to Cape Town.
In that case I'll have a look at it in paper format. Just not now cause I'm a cheap b@stard!