It was mostly to show that the scientific method is the key to the cosmos, and that oppressive force from those in power is a grave crime against progress and more broadly, humanity.
Couldn't they have made the same point with Galileo though?
It was mostly to show that the scientific method is the key to the cosmos, and that oppressive force from those in power is a grave crime against progress and more broadly, humanity.
Couldn't they have made the same point with Galileo though?
It was mostly to show that the scientific method is the key to the cosmos, and that oppressive force from those in power is a grave crime against progress and more broadly, humanity.
Yeah, and also to remind people that secularism is something to be cherished by reminding them of what it looked like when the Church and the State were essentially the same thing.
If that offends a few Catholics, shit happens. The fact that people still have an instinctual cringe reflex to any perceived attack on religion shows how much work remains to be done in de-elevating it from its undeserved pedestal.
"Let me tell you something: for hundreds of thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have, or those like us would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face, ingratiating way because its had to give so much more ground and because we know so much more. But youve got no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side."
- Christopher Hitchens
Holy shit, you guys. Young Neil deGrasse Tyson was ripped.
I liked it ok. It kept the same tone of the originals for sure, but the things they talked about seemed like they would go into more in later episodes
So are you defending any of those charges as being just?Except it's not relevant because you along with the cartoon are painting a picture that 1) infinite suns and worlds as well as 2) heliocentrism were so heretical they warranted execution.
"As far as we know?"
Are you serious? There's no as far as we know, we KNOW what the charges were:
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.
So among those charges, in context to the 16th century, you're telling me that a guy who had a dream about an infinite universe and the earth whizzing around the sun was MORE diabolical and heretical and could undermine the ENTIRE structure of the church than say I dunno, Mass and Transubstantiation?
I really, really urge you to read Heliocentrism and the Copernican Revolution. Nobody was ever put to death because they thought the Universe Was SO BIG its Bigger than Big could ever be Big because its so big its not even big because it just keeps going forever and ever. Nobody was ever burned at the stake because they thought hey maybe the Earth moves around the Sun.
Lucretius's "On the Nature of Things" was not some hush hush heretical book that was hidden under the floorboards of monastaries.
Bruno wasn't some Oh Gosh Golly I'm just some dude with a wacky idea and the big bad Church is gonna get me. The guy was belligerant. He told the church to fuck off if they didn't listen to him, so he moved on to the Lutherans, and then he told the Lutherans how to think, then they kicked him out, then he went to the Calvinists, and they kicked him out after he was pushing his agenda on them, then eventually he went to Cambrige and they did the same thing. I mean the guy got kicked out of France because he got into an argument on how a compass worked. The guy believed that demons were the cause of illness.
As I said before, there's so many people that they could have done a spotlight on. If they wanted to have an enlightened and informed discussion on the process of change and beliefs then they would have done better with Kepler, and Tycho Brahe and Copernicus. Wait they already did, that was episode three of Sagan's original. Kepler was the posterchild of different ideas because the guy TRIED, really tried to put the whole Mysterium Cosmographicum together and finally admitted defeat and had to go with real evidence.
The short cartoon segment left a bad taste in my mouth because not only was it misleading it was cynical. It was cynical because you know they threw it in there because it makes for a more engaging tale when someone gets to die in the end. Real scientists who worked their asses off instead of just dreaming about the answer like Kepler got thrown out in favor of sensationalism.
Like I said before and now looking on the interwebs, I see its causing an unneeded backlash and I really hope the series as a whole doesn't suffer for it because I still think that this series can be almost as good as the original.
Yeah, I don't get the complaints about lack of depth. It roughly followed the same theme as the first episode of the original Cosmos. Overview of the history of the universe, a little (human) historical blurb.
I think the place where the original really shines in comparison is the historical part. Sagan's excitement about the Library of Alexandria and lamenting over how much understanding and scientific knowledge was lost for hundreds of years really drove home the point about how important scientific pursuits are. Imagine if all that knowledge had been preserved, where would we be today?
In contrast the story about Bruno struck an odd chord and seemed like it had a bit of an agenda. I would have preferred they had done that section on either Copernicus or Galileo.
yeah, Bruno's story didn't really make me feel like I knew "more" about anything. Copernicus would have been a better one, and iirc, that's what they did in the first one. I don't remember Bruno being a huge part of the first series at all -- he was among a bunch of early scientists who were persecuted for their belief. this was a bit too dramatic, especially with Bruno "shunning" Jesus on the cross or whatever before he was burned alive, and how he did the weird face-to-face standoff thing in the religious court place.
So are you defending any of those charges as being just?
Are you saying the death penalty was warranted?
The point is they punished free inquiry and disagreement with death and that is wrong and anti science.
In case anyone missed it, or wants to rewatch.
http://www.cosmosontv.com/
Completely legal stream, not sure if it works outside of US.
Damn right it is.Historical contestability aside, "your god is too small" is a badass line.
By the way, the part about the multiverse is pure speculation at this point(aka a "guess"), but while it's far less testable than the existence of an expansive universe it has a reasonable philosophical argument behind it. Will we ever know for sure? Maybe not.
There's no real evidence for it, though.It was interesting that they included that. That is one of the things they can go deeper into later in the series that the original series could not.
By the way, the part about the multiverse is pure speculation at this point(aka a "guess"), but while it's far less testable than the existence of an expansive universe it has a reasonable philosophical argument behind it. Will we ever know for sure? Maybe not.
"This content is currently unavailable." ;_;
Historical contestability aside, "your god is too small" is a badass line.
Holy shit, you guys. Young Neil deGrasse Tyson was ripped.
There's no real evidence for it, though.
The 8 charges you listed are generic statements devoid of most specifics. But even in their vagueness, it's pretty clear the two hypotheses run afoul. what else do you think "plurality of worlds" refers to? And heliocentrism was certainly an "opinion contrary to the Catholic faith".Except it's not relevant because you along with the cartoon are painting a picture that 1) infinite suns and worlds as well as 2) heliocentrism were so heretical they warranted execution.
"As far as we know?"
Are you serious? There's no as far as we know, we KNOW what the charges were:
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.
Of course those charges are not just. The man shouldn't have deserved to die. When did I ever say that should have been the case.
You still don't get it either. He was not punished for free inquiry. He didn't go to Church and say "Oh gee guys, hey I got this little old idea and maybe you could take a look at it.". And then the big bad scary Catholic church goes Noooooo! Your mere dream destroys our flimsy institution that's stood for over a thousand years! We gotta kill this jerk who mad fun of our God! He said God was too small waaaaaaaah! I'm telling!
Read the case. Of course it wasn't justified to kill him. But how is this guy a martyr for science? The fact you put it into a phrase that he was killed over a disagreement and it'd anti-science is like saying any time someone is killed for differing beliefs is antiscience and should be honored as a martyr for science.
Actually, although the connection wasn't made clear in the show, the multiverse mention ties in nicely with the Bruno story. Both are philosophical arguments.Yeah that is why I found it interesting that they included it. I was thinking that it could serve a dual purpose as motivation for sticking with the show, and to later on discuss the scientific process in relation to a currently unproven theory that is fairly controversial among scientists.
Actually, although the connection wasn't made clear in the show, the multiverse mention ties in nicely with the Bruno story. Both are philosophical arguments.
Historical contestability aside, "your god is too small" is a badass line.
Pretty much every single one of those charges is about free inquiry. Was mary a virgin or not? Does transubstantiation happen or not? Are there a plurality of worlds or not?
Was Bruno a serious scientist? No. NDT even said that! But you can't be a scientist without first having free inquiry. And not allowing free inquiry is anti-science.
And yes . . . killing someone for "differing beliefs is antiscience"! That is the whole point!
By the way, the part about the multiverse is pure speculation at this point(aka a "guess"), but while it's far less testable than the existence of an expansive universe it has a reasonable philosophical argument behind it. Will we ever know for sure? Maybe not.
Who said Bruno was a martyr for science?So what you're saying is that anyone that is ever killed because they believe is different from what others believe should be a martyr for science?
Many developments have been made through qualitative analysis and argument. These developments are then quantified through mathematics and tested on those grounds. Copernicus had already published his argument for heliocentrism before Bruno was born, so what Bruno did was make a philosophical argument generalizing the idea. Now, much of this was actually theological because it rested on the idea of an infinite God, but its application becomes quite close to uniformitarianism as according to Bruno there was no room for Earth as a privileged local case made up of local elements different from that of the stars as the infinite nature of space demanded generality. This was also applied through time, removing Christian creation and apocalypse in place of a static universe.Did Bruno derive his heliocentric theory from mathematics?
I think you may have.CG was nice and DeGrasse Tyson is always likeable but I found it very simplistic and childish.
Maybe I have missed the point and it is supposed to be an introduction to Astronomy / Science.
For more detailed and serious science programs, especially in the field of Astronomy nothing beats the BBC2 show Horizon.
There are 12 more episodes. Watch those before you judge the complexity and depth of the program.CG was nice and DeGrasse Tyson is always likeable but I found it very simplistic and childish.
Maybe I have missed the point and it is supposed to be an introduction to Astronomy / Science.
For more detailed and serious science programs, especially in the field of Astronomy nothing beats the BBC2 show Horizon.
There are 12 more episodes. Watch those before you judge the complexity and depth of the program.
Many developments have been made through qualitative analysis and argument. These developments are then quantified through mathematics and tested on those grounds. Copernicus had already published his argument for heliocentrism before Bruno was born, so what Bruno did was make a philosophical argument generalizing the idea. Now, much of this was actually theological because it rested on the idea of an infinite God, but its application becomes quite close to uniformitarianism as according to Bruno there was no room for Earth as a privileged local case made up of local elements different from that of the stars as the infinite nature of space demanded generality. This was also applied through time, removing Christian creation and apocalypse in place of a static universe.
Again, Bruno runs into trouble with the theological root of his reasoning so the comparison I'm drawing here is rather loose, but the expansion of qualitative postulates into a quantitative theory shouldn't be foreign to any student of science. As always, testability is vital regardless of derivation.
Eh, there are actually different versions of the multiverse, each suited to addressing a specific philosophical failing. One for the idea that our universe is a one-shot event just happened to satisfy the anthropic principle, another for the nature of quantum waveform collapse, and another for string theorists because they can't actually get their math to mean much of anything.I only asked because last I checked, multiverse theory was a product of string theory which has its quantitative foundation, but also hasn't suffered observation. It seemed like you were using "philosophical" in a purely dismissive sense, is all. But I guess when you get down to it, multiverse theory isn't any less philosophical than Bruno's generalization from Copernicus.
Speaking of which.You cannot have expansion without the outcome being the multiverse at a minimum a level one multiverse.
Expansion is an emergent prediction of general relativity, the multiverse is an emergent prediction based on expansion.
Check out the book Our Mathmaltical Universe, it really makes these concepts understandable.
Who said Bruno was a martyr for science?
The Catholic Church was an authoritarian body with a prescribed worldview. Science is inherently anti-authoritarian. Whenever they spoke to the same issues they were fundamentally at odds. Copernicus had to delay publication until after death, and Galileo was forced into doing a weak and non-committal "teach the controversy" treatment which ended up getting him in trouble when he clearly wanted to just argue his own case affirmatively.
char0n said:I felt the science was well explained and done just right thus far. It wasn't at an indepth level or teach me anything I personally didn't already know (asides from apparently the "multiverse" isn't just high-concept sci fi that's more philosophical in nature than anything anymore?), but covered a large swath of topics in a totally layman understandable manner that was engaging and visually appealing. Great introduction overall!
char0n said:I personally didn't like the fictional aspects. Disclaimer: I did not watch the original Cosmos so I don't know if they did similar there, but I was practically raised on shows like NOVA, nature documentaries on PBS, and shows that did science in a real lab setting. I personally prefer the more reality based "here's what it is/looks like" type explanations that still use CG for things that need it but are more explaining the facts rather than the "We're looking at it now live in our magic spaceship" and inserting Tyson as an actor in what was being talked about (him holding his ears for the meteor impact felt more like comic relief rather than adding a sense of being there). I suppose though it probably resonates more with and helps hold the attention of modern younger generations (that's my "personal" point deduction).
char0n said:I feel the Bruno thing was a potential huge misstep, especially since this was the first episode that should be trying to ease people in and get them hooked (so they will feel more conflicted when controversy comes in to play due to established attachment). It felt very McFarlane heavy-handed, especially with the made up dialog of "I'm just being totally reasonable" "RABBLE RABBLE YOU MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE DEATH TO YOU!" overselling of things (as well as the Disney-esque hero/villain caricaturing in the drawings/mannerisms) and glossing over the other details in order to sell the "Religion hate science, religion bad!" message. I personally rolled my eyes at the "Your god is too small" line, it really felt like it was just the dialog writer trying to taunt the religious at that point. If they were trying to get science into households that are lacking in it such as religious ones, over half of them turned it off there and won't be coming back. Some religious parents might even take their kids to research the full circumstances around the story and turn turn the "question authority trying to sell you something" message back around at it. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been told at all (although as has been pointed out there are plenty of other far more appropriate similar stories to tell), but rather that it was handled very poorly except to get already pro-scientific anti-religious atheists to fist-pump at home.
char0n said:Overall it was good but yeah, if it wasn't for specifically how the Bruno bit was handled, it would have been near perfect. Hopefully it's not a case of "the damage is already done," as I'm sure the series will go on and do great, but the whole point should be to bring outsiders in to understanding by being open and inviting, not preaching to choir with a break to talk about how horrible people not in it are/were.
It's like saying somebody is free but they still have to do what you tell them to. Of course the Church was against science whenever it wasn't safe and docile.I agree. But I'm not sure what your point is. It's obvious that if they have conflicting views they're gonna uh... conflict with each other.