Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    29 Sep '08 10:45
    What, if anything, was his contribution to science?
  2. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    29 Sep '08 10:56
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    What, if anything, was his contribution to science?
    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.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Oct '08 03:55
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    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.
    I think he really pissed off a bunch of people having nothing to do with his cosmology.
  4. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    01 Oct '08 10:12
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    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.
    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.

    There are conflicting accounts, too. On the one hand, Bruno's interest in memory is emphasised; on the other, his work in mathematics.
  5. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    01 Oct '08 13:37
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    He 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.

    Direct influence on science I know he had any and his math was more verbal than anything. 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.

    But I'll check out some things on the net and on my class notes of history and science to see if I'm missing something important. If you know about any good source online just let me know too.
  6. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    01 Oct '08 13:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    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.
    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.
  7. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    01 Oct '08 14:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    Kepler also was a lunatic.

    I don't know much about his other endeavors, but in what today think as astronomy/physics he behaved like a lunatic.

    I'm not using lunatic as a bad word. But on many aspects Kepler and Bruno were out of this world. Kepler was a very good mathematician and astronomer but he still was a lunatic.

    Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Memory I think this book may be a very good read. I for one would like to she goes from mnemonic systems to the scientific method.
  8. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    01 Oct '08 20:26
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Kepler also was a lunatic. ;.
    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.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Oct '08 20:41
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    So did Bruno's memory methods work?
  10. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    01 Oct '08 21:05
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    I guess you'd include Newton in the lunatic throng. Fair enough, they were all a bit nuts.

    Exactly. But Kepler and Bruno were on a different level of lunatics. Kepler had a great intellect but he wasn't an everyday Joe.

    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.

    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.

    Back in those days of Neoplatonism, and other crazy (no disrespect intended here) mathematics was associated with astrology (not astronomy) and maybe that's why he feared that association. Kepler for instance was working for the King not as an astronomer or as a mathematician but as an astrologist. Copernicus also made his book during his spare times in his work as an astronomer. Notions changed a lot in the last 5/6 centuries.
  11. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    02 Oct '08 10:49
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    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..
    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.
  12. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    03 Oct '08 12:42
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    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.
    In that case I'll have a look at it in paper format. Just not now cause I'm a cheap b@stard!
  13. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    03 Oct '08 13:20
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    In that case I'll have a look at it in paper format. Just not now cause I'm a cheap b@stard!
    I'll lend you my copy if you come to Cape Town.
  14. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    03 Oct '08 13:44
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I'll lend you my copy if you come to Cape Town.
    I'll be going to Angola to work and from there to Cape Town isn't that far.