well they should look stupid. The orthodoxy of religion is the #1 enemy of science.

It's basic. God is infinite. Why can't the universe be infinite? Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. I don't see why they can't coexist peacefully without someone being burned at the stake.
[Reply]

IKR!
[Reply]

Ashamed I just did that.
[Reply]

I had no problem with it until the part about Giordano Bruno. That was almost complete FICTION. When you are a show about science it's kind of important to stick to FACTS. The show lost all credibility at that point for me. Anyone who knows the least thing about Bruno would have been bewildered at the nonsense they showed.

If you are comfortable with showing your kids crap that is make believe then you might as well show them Creationism or some other nonsense.
[Reply]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Bruno was NOT burned at the stake for scientific heresy. That is utter claptrap. He was a pantheist and pretty much an asshole in general. Now, that doesn't mean he should have been burned, no one is advocating that... but he was persecuted for his RELIGIOUS beliefs that had nothing to do with science.

He also wasn't some poor suffering martyr. Playing fast and loose with historical facts is a sure fire way to lose credibility in my book.

And now it calls into question all the very REAL science that is being taught by giving the whackos a legitimate LIE told by the show as "proof" that the whole thing is questionable. Stick to the fucking facts, it's not hard to do.
[Reply]

My burned at the stake comment was not about Bruno. But the systemic torture and killing of anyone with a scientific thought not approved by the church for hundreds of years. I'm sure he was using "Bruno" as a metaphor for all those scientists that were tortured and killed solely because they were pursuing science instead of blindly following church doctrine.
[Reply]

Nice try but he wasn't using Bruno as a metaphor, he presented the account as historical fact. You can NOT have a show about science where you turn around and simply make up sections of history.

TOTAL. CREDIBILITY. FAIL.
[Reply]

Ding Ding Ding. Winner Winner, chicken dinner.

Originally Posted by :
Here's the thing: Even "Cosmos" points out that Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess," says Tyson. So why is the long-dead philosopher important enough to rate hero status? That would be because "Cosmos" takes his case as one of "martyrdom."

What "Cosmos" does not point out to its audiences that the Catholic Church didn't really care about Bruno's views on the Earth moving around the Sun. His crimes -- the ones for which he was executed -- were theological. Several actual scientists in this period happily investigated the ideas of Copernicus' theories without running into trouble. Even Galileo only got in trouble when he published books that directly mocked the Church's adherence to the Earth being at the center.

Why does this matter?

So what if Giordano Bruno wasn't a scientist and wasn't executed for science? There are three big reasons why this does, in fact, matter and why it hurts "Cosmos" to get it wrong.

1. To borrow one of Tyson's famous quotes, the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. The same goes for history. Getting the history of science wrong hurts science itself. Why believe the science if other parts of the show are inaccurate?

2. Making Bruno into a martyr for science basically makes 100 years of historical research useless. The idea of Giordano Bruno as a scientific hero only originated in the 19th century, when he was championed by several historians. Since then, most have classified him as a philosopher sharing dangerous ideas in a dangerous time.

3. It's an unstated goal of "Cosmos" to champion science and scientific reasoning over superstition and religious dogmatism. But you're not going to win over anyone by vilifying religion in the face of science. Add in Bruno flying into space in an overtly crucifixion stance almost seems like giving religion the finger. You don't win arguments that way, "Cosmos."

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...the-world.html

Generally a positive review, but, like AustinChief, nails the Bruno thing on the head.
[Reply]

His beliefs on astrology were a part of the reason why there was a heresy trial. But, most of the reason was religious.

Again, thats not my point. Religion killed many scientists for advocating scientific beliefs and principles.

You want to get side tracked and say since this one thing wasn't the whole truth and nothing but the truth therefore everything else is pure BS. Thats your right.
[Reply]

Tyson's effectiveness is as a communicator. He's definitely a brilliant man, but he's nowhere near one of the smartest people on the planet. He's done nothing of note as a researcher. Most of his effectiveness has been as a public intellectual and advocate for science, which is important, but it doesn't put him in the rarefied air. I don't want to sound like an internet ass by typing that, but it's the truth.

Sagan, for example, made important contributions to research within the solar system, several of which were mentioned last night, as well as contributions to a number of NASA's interplanetary (and now extrasolar) missions.
[Reply]

Dude, come on. You KNOW it was a complete fuck 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)
[Reply]

Actually. The reason for Bruno being burned at the stake is still a subject of controversy among historians. To pass the version you choose to believe off as though it is fact is dishonest. Yay God.
[Reply]

[Reply]

Are you trying to lump me in as an anti-science religious nut? You obviously don't know me very well if you are.

I care about FACTS. And you are dead wrong about Bruno. It is a subject of controversy like 9/11 is a subject of controversy. Yes there are some tin foil wackadoodles that think it was a conspiracy but those of us who live in the real world know better. Yes, a few nuts have pulled the "Bruno was persecuted for his science" theory out of their asses but there is nothing to indicate this in the least. The very real reason he was burned at the stake was because he was espousing a ton of different heresies AND was a complete asshole about it. There were MANY other prominent scholars and members of the Church disagreeing with the Church doctrine at the time who were never persecuted in the least.

BUT let's ignore ALL OF THAT... the rest of the account was full of lies as well. He wasn't some poor persecuted homeless person wandering from handout to handout as they tried to represent him.

Like I said before, anyone who knows a damn thing about the history here is scratching their head as to why Cosmos went full retard on this.
[Reply]

I was kind of surprised how much my kids enjoyed it to be honest.
[Reply]