"Smug is nearly as bad as being wrong."

"Sometimes it's worse."

Tell me -- is the above statement TRVTH or B.S.?

--Baloo

------------------
When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I would think it depends... Someone proven right after a long hard struggle in which he faced immense opposition probably deserves a bit of smugness. Bragging rights, and all that.

For instance, I think Galileo's ghost should be afforded a bit of smugness.

Being smug about whether a movie sucked or something, that's different.
"This movie's gonna suck!"
"Let's wait till we see it"
...
"Man, that movie sucked!"
"Told you so..." *smugly*

That wouldn't cut it.

About what would he be smug about, sure he was right, but want happened to him, (about the fact he forced to recall his teaching about the planets orbit) happened because of his own stubboness and not his actual teaching. Basically want the Church wanted him to do is let him teach want every he wanted to on the matter of the orbit of the planets and the people would eventually follow his logical idea that the earth wasn't the center of the Universe. Of course Galileo was simply stubbon only taught that, but openly said in letters that the Bible and the Church was wrong, which involved politics and religion which brought the wrath of the Church down on him.

Here is one of the sources that I found that supports this http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/06342b.htm yes I know because it from "the Catholic Encyclopedia" some people may think it is suspect, but I trying to find other good sources however it is already really really late.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

*nudges Baloo* Tr V th? ... perhaps you want to fix that? *L*

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

I think not.

Take a gander here: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_262b.html

Of course, if you regularly read B.C., you already suspected as much.

------------------
When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Ok so no one either brought, or read my reference, fine I look for another. But Galileo wasn't killed for telling the truth, he died because he was old (or more likely gone sick).

Ok I just checked my Encyclopaedia Britannica (paper version) and it said Galileo was under house arrest, that he wasn't killed, but died of a fever. Basely want it sound like doing further research on Encyclopaedia Britannica and on the web is that Galileo's big problem happened in 1616 when he told to not "hold or defend" the techings of Copernicus, but discuss it as a "mathical supposition" which he agreed to. The trouble is the docunment was forged (by whom it was likely someone in the Church, but who is the real question because the Church isn't a monolitch organization) which caused Galileo real trouble and basically is want forced him to recant his theory and sentenced him to prison that was quickly changed to house arrest (he spent no more than a day in prison).

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

But I digress...

Yeah. Galileo was stubborn. He wouldn't "get with the program, speak the goodspeak, discuss things 'appropriately.'" AND HE WAS RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS. That's what mekes him better than his pious, obedient little contemporaries, that's why he deserves "smug."

To First of Two: "equal opportunities for WOMEN???"

Ahhh women priest, there we go again, actually in most religions it really shouldn't be a big deal women as pastors, there pastors (forgive me for the generalization but here goes) give sermons, sometimes hand out bread and wine, lead prayer and other fun stuff like that. Well you see there is one thing in the Catholic Church that is a massive barrier to women becoming Priest which is called "Transubstantation", which is the belief that when the Priest concrates the Bread and wine it actually becomes the actual body and blood of Christ (unlike other some other religions that do communions they believe either it is a symbol of body and blood, or as Luthor thought is only the Body and blood of Christ for a little, while, Catholics believe it is always the body and blood of christ.) Ok back to Transubstantation, the trouble about that is that the Church believe it can only be done by man, mainly because all of the 12 (actually there where 13, but that's not the point) where men and they were given by Jesus the power to concrate the host to men (the 12), and Peter the head of Church was a man. That's likely something the Catholic Church will never back down on. I most other religious there is really no good reason other than they didn't want women to run there church, honestly I don't care about the issue, I have no power in it, and frankly I am glad that I don't. However again this is a issue that actually is centered around the most important thing in the Catholic Church. And Again I don't support or oppose this opinion I just basically stating what the Catholic Church's reasoning is.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

My Physics teacher has gotta be one of the smartest guys I know... one of these guys who is obsessed with the history of science. He is a radical hater of Aristotle and lover of Newton.... a disciple of the scientific method...and somebody who explained to our class why Gallileo was actually full of shit.

GG has become a figurehead of all things progressive... the best known martyr of science at the hands of the evil church. What isn't well known is that the church didn't bust him for saying the Earth went around the sun, but rather that the notion that the the Earth went around the sun was infallible. The church rounded up some respectable scientists who said GG couldn't say his theory was infallible as it was a theory, for just as it is today, even the most universally accepted theories are still just theories. Copernicus had already long since brought forth the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the church really had no problem with the theory. It was Mr. G gallavanting about the streets saying he was right and nothing else could be true that POed the church.. they felt that sort of territory was theirs...

In fact, one thing that has been quietly forgotten was that GG had published a whole load of what we would call bullshit today about the moon, and in fact what the other scientists of the time said that contradicted GG would later be reinforced and is commonly accepted today. Of course, like his theory of a sun-centric universe, GG also considered his moon stuff infallible.

To his credit, GG's discovery of several things like the moons of Jupiter and Saturn's rings, plus his work on the telescope were quite good. He was a good scientist, but not a great one, and his punishments were far from just a censure of science.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

Galileo did more than embrace heliocentrism. He showed that the planets, especially the Moon, were not "perfect" spheres, as the church had assumed, and that Jupiter had moons which orbited around it - which denied that everything moved around the Earth.

And so what if he said heliocentrism was the only possible truth? As it turns out, he was right.

Of course, we don't NEED to point to Galileo as an example of science persecuted by the Church.. there's always Hypatia, Geordiano Bruno, and Kepler.