OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Ovinomancer]

In the famous last words of Giordano Bruno who as a scientist and philosopher was condemned to death by the partisan church for his daring to research into what they termed heresy:

"Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it!"

There are no scared cows in scholarship.

Bruno was a fantabulist who happened to guess right about one thing. His claims about the cosmos had zero proof and weren't consistent with the available evidence of the time (investigate period telescopes for why). And then, all that aside, Bruno wasn't executed for his views on the cosmos, but because he denied things like damnation. So, in context, Bruno's statement was because he thought he had God right and the Church didn't, not because he was a serious scholar daring to.follow the evidence no matter the cost. The legend of Bruno diesn't align with the truth that he was a garden variety conspiracy theorist that lucked into a correct guess.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

The point being he was executed for professing opposing views, that is all that is expressed.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Bruno was a fantabulist who happened to guess right about one thing. His claims about the cosmos had zero proof and weren't consistent with the available evidence of the time (investigate period telescopes for why). And then, all that aside, Bruno wasn't executed for his views on the cosmos, but because he denied things like damnation. So, in context, Bruno's statement was because he thought he had God right and the Church didn't, not because he was a serious scholar daring to.follow the evidence no matter the cost. The legend of Bruno diesn't align with the truth that he was a garden variety conspiracy theorist that lucked into a correct guess.

Which theory did he "luck into" being right about with the instruments available at the time? You're probably right but i just wanted to know which theory.

Its pretty common for people to assume ancient people are less capable to the task of analyzing their physical surroundings than it turns out they actually are. There is a fair amount of discovery, forgetting about, and rediscovery of scientific facts which happens in human history. For instance, the earth being round and not the center of the universe has off and onn been well known fact regionally only to be forgotten and then re-figured out. Plenty of stuff like that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The point being he was executed for professing opposing views, that is all that is expressed.

Ah, well, that's not as inspirational. Bundy could be said to have been executed for professing opposing views, after all.

I have a hobby horse about the "martyrs for science" myths we've built, specifically about the Vatican and helio-centricism. Galileo was a crank as well, punished for insulting the Pope (who had been his friend and supporter) by portraying him as a moron, not his model. And, Galileo also had no proof, he was just convinced he was smarter than everyone. Kepler had a better model, corresponded with Galileo, and Galileo dismissed Kepler as a fool because he dared assume Galileo could be wrong.

I'm a big fan of following the evidence, but the irony of citing a fantabulist because of a myth tripped my comment flag. Please, feel free to ignore and carry on.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Ah, well, that's not as inspirational. Bundy could be said to have been executed for professing opposing views, after all.

I have a hobby horse about the "martyrs for science" myths we've built, specifically about the Vatican and helio-centricism. Galileo was a crank as well, punished for insulting the Pope (who had been his friend and supporter) by portraying him as a moron, not his model. And, Galileo also had no proof, he was just convinced he was smarter than everyone. Kepler had a better model, corresponded with Galileo, and Galileo dismissed Kepler as a fool because he dared assume Galileo could be wrong.

I'm a big fan of following the evidence, but the irony of citing a fantabulist because of a myth tripped my comment flag. Please, feel free to ignore and carry on.

Not here to argue conjecture. The point is as stated. Whether right or wrong he was executed, or in other words, his views were neither corroborated or proven wrong--they were dismissed due to partisanship; and as I have noted, that is what appears on the surface to be happening in this thread to lesser or greater degrees. So. I stand by what is true or false as an eventual outcome, not by what is inspirational or any other route that would be to the detriment of reaching that summary.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ah, well, that's not as inspirational. Bundy could be said to have been executed for professing opposing views, after all.

I have a hobby horse about the "martyrs for science" myths we've built, specifically about the Vatican and helio-centricism. Galileo was a crank as well, punished for insulting the Pope (who had been his friend and supporter) by portraying him as a moron, not his model. And, Galileo also had no proof, he was just convinced he was smarter than everyone. Kepler had a better model, corresponded with Galileo, and Galileo dismissed Kepler as a fool because he dared assume Galileo could be wrong.

I'm a big fan of following the evidence, but the irony of citing a fantabulist because of a myth tripped my comment flag. Please, feel free to ignore and carry on.

Wasnt bundy executed for murder?

He defended himself in court too didnt he? (Is this what you are refering to? I dont think that would be getting executed for professing opposing views)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which theory did he "luck into" being right about with the instruments available at the time? You're probably right but i just wanted to know which theory.

Its pretty common for people to assume ancient people are less capable to the task of analyzing their physical surroundings than it turns out they actually are. There is a fair amount of discovery, forgetting about, and rediscovery of scientific facts which happens in human history. For instance, the earth being round and not the center of the universe has off and onn been well known fact regionally only to be forgotten and then re-figured out. Plenty of stuff like that.

The short form is that tge best optics of tge time showed stars as discs rather than points. Further, despite every effort, there was no observable parallax. They were snart enough to know some rough margins of error, so if stars were far enough away for parallax to be too small to detect AND where discs if a size to be visible in a telescope, then they must be unimaginably huge (like actually stupid big, much larger than out solar system).

If they are that big, then they couldn't have planets. Or, we don't orbit the sun, the stars are reasonably sized fixed points in the heavens, and also don't have planets.

Like most things, knowledge didn't actually advance until we got better data.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ah, well, that's not as inspirational. Bundy could be said to have been executed for professing opposing views, after all.

I have a hobby horse about the "martyrs for science" myths we've built, specifically about the Vatican and helio-centricism. Galileo was a crank as well, punished for insulting the Pope (who had been his friend and supporter) by portraying him as a moron, not his model. And, Galileo also had no proof, he was just convinced he was smarter than everyone. Kepler had a better model, corresponded with Galileo, and Galileo dismissed Kepler as a fool because he dared assume Galileo could be wrong.

I'm a big fan of following the evidence, but the irony of citing a fantabulist because of a myth tripped my comment flag. Please, feel free to ignore and carry on.

The other weird thing about this situation is that a large body within the church already considered the earth not to be the center of the universe and that this was nit even a new notion. It was held in contention by some in the church but there was already some centuries earlier a catholic monk of all things that had already used calculations on star charts, shadow measurements year to year, and other data to show the earth was revolving around the sun. I think he also showed that the sun likely was moving but i cant remember for sure if that was the same guy or someone later.

Btw, an example of what i was talking about when i said that scientific knowledge often gets discovered, forgotten, then rediscovered.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not here to argue conjecture. The point is as stated. Whether right or wrong he was executed, or in other words, his views were neither corroborated or proven wrong--they were dismissed due to partisanship; and as I have noted, that is what appears on the surface to be happening in this thread to lesser or greater degrees. So. I stand by what is true or false as an eventual outcome, not by what is inspirational or any other route that would be to the detriment of reaching that summary.

Sigh. If we're talking about Bruno's theories if the cosmos, they were dismissed because they contradicted the best scuence of the time (by smart, learned people) and he had no proof. Also, he wasn't executed for this.

If you're talking about Bruno's actual heresy, then there was also no proof. He was, however, executed for his actual heresy.

Myths are hard to let go, even for those that profess a love of scholarshop.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Sigh. If we're talking about Bruno's theories if the cosmos, they were dismissed because they contradicted the best scuence of the time (by smart, learned people) and he had no proof. Also, he wasn't executed for this.

If you're talking about Bruno's actual heresy, then there was also no proof. He was, however, executed for his actual heresy.

Myths are hard to let go, even for those that profess a love of scholarshop.

I would appreciate you staying in the spirit of the comparison boundary I have drawn and have repeatedly alluded to and demonstrated; and in fact have described inter-contextually. IOW I am staying in the river rather than being sucked into argument about one of its minor tributaries that I did not create.