Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric Key articles * Logical fallacy * Syllogism * Argument General logic * Certum est quia impossibile est * Silent Majority * Ecological fallacy * Affirming the consequent * Apelación a la piedad * W.V.O. Quine Bad logic * Nirvana fallacy * Scope fallacy * Apophasis * Masked man fallacy * Bait-and-switch * Appeal to flattery v \- t \- e There's a difference between [everyone calls you an idiot] and [genius]. No, really. (Source) “”Doctor: Now, many of the medical profession are sceptical about my work. They point to my record of treatment of athlete's foot sufferers — eighty-four dead, sixty-five severely wounded and twelve missing believed cured. But then, people laughed at Bob Hope, people laughed at my wife when she wrapped herself up in greaseproof paper and hopped into the Social Security office, but that doesn't mean that Pasteur was wrong! —Monty Python[1] “”It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. —Robert L. Park The Galileo gambit (also Galileo syndrome[2]:165-166 and Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to supposedly vilify or threaten you, then you must be right — "everyone says I am wrong, therefore I am right." Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially "Galileo wannabes". The fallacy refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand. What proponents of this fallacy fail to consider is that not all people who challenge the mainstream scientific consensus are martyrs or revolutionaries; in most cases, they are just simply morons. It essentially conflates the way one is treated with the reason one is treated that way. An extreme example of this might be the treatment of criminals under totalitarianism; while many genuine political dissidents were imprisoned in Siberia under Soviet rule, so were many thieves, murderers and rapists. It does not follow that because the first group were persecuted for political reasons that the criminals were in the right. Likewise, a major manufacturer may take steps against someone who is about to expose their appalling pollution or human rights records, but they will also pursue someone who is making libellous and false statements about them. The fallacy is an appeal to the minority, an appeal to authority, a conditional fallacy, and an association fallacy. Also related to argument from ignorance. ## Contents * 1 Form * 2 Examples * 2.1 The Galileo gambit in politics * 3 Actual, legitimate examples * 4 Problems * 5 "You get the most flak when you're over the target" * 6 See also * 7 External links * 8 Notes * 9 References ## Form[edit] The structure of the argument is: P1: A is X and Y P2: B is X. C: B is Y. or more specifically: P1: Galileo was persecuted and was correct. P2: I am persecuted. C: I am correct. They made fun of Galileo, and he was right. They make fun of me, therefore I am right. ## Examples[edit] “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong. —Quietuus[3] It is freakishly common among creationists and global warming denialists alike against the evil scientific consensus. Examples include: * Chris Woollams of CANCERactive blogging as "Galileo Galilei" * A global warming denial site calling itself The Galileo Movement It is also common for proponents of scientific racism to play the victim card and claim they are being censored by a massive "politically correct" conspiracy when, in reality, their ideas are just simply pseudoscientific bullshit. The Galileo gambit isn't just for crank scientists. Business executives can get in on it too. For example, during Enron's final months, as the lawsuits piled up and the SEC closed in, a small (and gradually dwindling) faction of employees were firmly convinced that the company had done no wrong, claiming that they were being persecuted for trying to shake up the industry rather than for committing fraud. They went by the motto, "You can always tell who the pioneers are, because they're the ones with arrows in their backs."[4]:413 ### The Galileo gambit in politics[edit] “”[I]t's important to point out here that people with out-of-the-mainstream ideas who compare themselves to Edison and Galileo are never actually right… I can guarantee you Einstein did not go around telling people, "Look, I know this theory of general relativity sounds wacky, but that's what they said about Galileo!" —Jordan Ellenberg[5] A common usage of this fallacy in politics today is for a politician or other figure to "play the victim," pointing at people's opposition to their political program as evidence of its "soundness." In the West, this dodge was first employed on a large scale by early Christians, many of whom deliberately entered into confrontations with the Roman state and then obtained martyr status when they were executed, all according to plan.[6] This allowed the Church to ask such questions as, "Would the Disciples die for a lie?" ## Actual, legitimate examples[edit] Examples of actual Galileo-like figures are exceedingly rare, and it's even rarer when those figures actually proclaim themselves as Galileo-like figures. (After all, if you have actual evidence to back yourself up, why would you need to rely on such a gambit?) Still, it does occur from time to time, and when it does happen, it's often an important part of the structure of scientific revolutions. Besides Galileo himself, some examples include: * Other proponents of the heliocentric model like Copernicus or Kepler * Gregor Mendel, whose work on genetics was largely ignored during his lifetime * Ignaz Semmelweis, whose advocacy for antiseptic practices was dismissed by medical practitioners * Alfred Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was rejected by his contemporaries * Critics of Lysenkoism, who were ostracized by the Soviet Union * Some whistleblowers, like Karen Silkwood or Jeffrey Wigand, recognized health concerns that were suppressed or ignored by corporations or governments Reminder: the existence of counterexamples does not nullify the fact that the Galileo gambit is, by all means, a fallacy. ## Problems[edit] “”The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma. —Steven Novella In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct[note 1] — that is, that the evidence supports your position. There is no link between being "persecuted" and actually being correct. However, the selective reporting of cases where people who were persecuted or ostracized for beliefs and ideas that later turned out to be valid has instilled a confidence in woo promoters and pseudoscientists that is difficult to shake. They forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo. The fallacy as normally used relies, to a large extent, on misrepresenting the refusal of the scientific community to publish or engage with cranks as "censorship." The gambit takes many forms, but in most cases someone using it to promote their ideas will highlight their perceived persecution. This supposed persecution is blown out of all proportion until an observer almost has no choice but to accept their ideas practically as a sympathy vote. Such tactics are used in the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which focused on several academics who supposedly lost jobs because they promoted intelligent design as a valid hypothesis. The film portrayed this as a violation of academic freedom and played the persecution card extensively. Among those capable of indulging this gambit, mere opposition to their crankery alone may be sufficient to induce the belief that they are being persecuted and, hence, were right all along. Cranks who use the gambit to claim persecution by "Big Science" often fail to see the irony in the comparison — it was the Catholic Church that censored Galileo, not the "scientific establishment". An additional irony arises when we consider that if the maverick idea does manage to amass enough evidence to win over the majority, it will become the new consensus — at which point, by the fallacy's own reasoning, the idea must become wrong! After all, a new "Galileo" might assert that the Earth is indeed the Universe's stationary center (some people actually do assert this). The astronomers who would disagree and point and laugh, by the fallacy's line of reasoning, are just the Catholic Church all over again, and they won't have the last laugh (though taking this a step further, neither will the new "Galileo"; an alternating series of laughs will terminate only when the human race disappears). This kind of madness may be consistent with certain flavors of postmodernism, but then again, so is everything else. ## "You get the most flak when you're over the target"[edit] “”First They Ignore You, Then They Ridicule You, Then They Fight You, Then You Win. —A quote constantly misattributed to Gandhi[7][8] and proudly repeated like a mantra by any Galileo gambiteer worth his weight in salt "You get the most flak when you're over the target" is a pseudo-logical gambit, a favorite of Internet argument used as a substitute for rational rebuttal. Its intention, of course, is to prove that a hopelessly-irrational woo proposition must be right because opponents are taking the trouble to criticize it. The popularity of this fallacious way of thinking is one major reason why real scientists are often reluctant to debate creationists. * Apparently, the contrapositive does not apply. Woo-proponents have never been known to write, "I must be wrong because I'm not being criticized", and will also use a lack of criticism as evidence for their position. * You get flak when you're bombing something that doesn't want to be bombed, whether or not it's a legitimate target. * Flak-based anti-aircraft positions are typically set up in a defensive pattern, either away from or around a target — the point being to take down potential bombers before they are ever in a position to actually deploy their bombs. So, when you're directly over the target (read: when the anti-aircraft defenses have failed to stop you) you would actually be getting less flak. * Bombers dodging flak (and war-fighting in general) is an arena where might makes right, so any analogy based on it is highly suspect in an arena where being correct is supposed to make right. ## See also[edit] * Argumentum ad martyrdom * Association fallacy * Big science * Arthur C. Clarke's First Law * Confirmation bias * Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed * Hostile media effect * Paranoia * Persecution complex * Science was wrong before ## External links[edit] * The Galileo Fallacy, and the Gadfly Corollary, Greta Christina * The Galileo Gambit, Respectful Insolence * Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog, Science 2.0 * Steven Novella (March 19 2012) "Galileo Syndrome and the Principle of Exclusion" ## Notes[edit] 1. ↑ One might argue that, since Nicolaus Copernicus was not persecuted for his theory (he died in 1543), it's just Galileo. (The difference here is Copernicus did not actively spread the idea, while Galileo did. Also, Galileo tended to provoke those holding the opposing viewpoint, and this often leads to one's ideas not getting the reception they deserve.) ## References[edit] 1. ↑ Vicar [Salesman], Monty Python's Flying Circus MontyPython.net. 2. ↑ The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake by Steven Novella et al. (2018) Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 9781538760536. 3. ↑ http://archive.is/lzd7v by Quietuus (December 5, 2016) '"Reddit (archived from 6 Dec 2016 12:03:07 UTC). 4. ↑ The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind (2004) Penguin Books ISBN 1591840538 5. ↑ How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking, Jordan Ellenberg 6. ↑ Donatists, New Advent 7. ↑ Gandhi Wikiquote. 8. ↑ ‘First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You’ Quote Isn't Gandhi's by Dan Evon (1 March 2016) Snopes. v \- t \- e Articles about logical fallacies Informal fallacies: | Appeal to tradition • Appeal to novelty • Appeal to nature • Argument from morality • Argumentum ad martyrdom • Big words • Certum est quia impossibile est • Morton's fork • Friend argument • Exception that proves the rule • Extended analogy • Hindsight bias • Race card • Moralistic fallacy • Release the data • Gish Gallop • Terrorism-baiting • Uncertainty tactic • Greece-baiting • Ham Hightail • Red-baiting • Gore's Law • Nazi analogies • Mistaking the map for the territory • Red herring • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Presentism • Sunk cost • Two wrongs make a right • Flying carpet fallacy • My enemy's enemy • Appeal to ancient wisdom • Danth's Law • Argumentum ad lunam • Balance fallacy • Golden hammer • Loaded question • Escape to the future • Word magic • Spider-Man fallacy • Sanctioning the devil • Appeal to mystery • Informal fallacy • Common sense • Post-designation • Hyperbole • Relativist fallacy • Due diligence • Straw man • Good old days • Appeal to probability • Infinite regress • Circular reasoning • Media was wrong before • سفسطه‌ی حد وسط • پاسخ کورتیر • کلمات قلمبه سلمبه • تقلیل به هیتلر • دوگانگی مرتن • Is–ought problem • Ad iram • Just asking questions • 稻草人谬误 • Pink-baiting • Appeal to faith • Appeal to fear • Appeal to bias • Appeal to confidence • Appeal to consequences • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to flattery • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to hate • Argument from omniscience • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad baculum • Argumentum ad fastidium • Association fallacy • Broken window fallacy • Category mistake • Confounding factor • Counterfactual fallacy • Courtier's Reply • Damning with faint praise • Definitional fallacies • Equivocation • Fallacy of accent • Fallacy of accident • Fallacy of amphiboly • Gambler's fallacy • Imprecision fallacy • Moving the goalposts • Nirvana fallacy • Overprecision • Pathos gambit • Pragmatic fallacy • Quote mining • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Science doesn't know everything • Slothful induction • Spotlight fallacy • Style over substance • Toupee fallacy • Genuine but insignificant cause • Argument from incredulity • Appeal to age • Argumentum ad nauseam • Phantom distinction • Appeal to common sense • Apelación a la fe • Argumentum ad hysteria • | Ad hoc: | No True Scotsman • Moving the goalposts • Escape hatch • Handwave • Special pleading • Slothful induction • Nirvana fallacy • God of the gaps • PIDOOMA • Ad hoc • Tone argument • | Arguments from ignorance: | Science doesn't know everything • Argument from incredulity • Argument from silence • Toupee fallacy • Appeal to censorship • Science was wrong before • Holmesian fallacy • Argument from omniscience • Willful ignorance • Argument from ignorance • | Causation fallacies: | Post hoc, ergo propter hoc • Correlation does not imply causation • Wrong direction • Counterfactual fallacy • Regression fallacy • Gambler's fallacy • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (español) • Denying the antecedent • Genuine but insignificant cause • | Circular reasoning: | Infinite regress • Argument by assertion • Argumentum ad dictionarium • Appeal to faith • Circular reasoning • Self-refuting idea • Apelación a la fe • | Emotional appeals: | Appeal to fear • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to confidence • Deepity • Argumentum ad baculum • Appeal to shame • Appeal to flattery • Tone argument • Appeal to money • Argumentum ad fastidium • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to consequences • Loaded language • Style over substance • Appeal to pity • Appeal to hate • Pathos gambit • Apelación a la piedad • | Fallacies of ambiguity: | Fallacy of accent • Equivocation • Fallacy of amphiboly • Quote mining • Fallacy of ambiguity • Moral equivalence • Scope fallacy • Suppressed correlative • Not as bad as • Etymology • Continuum fallacy • Wronger than wrong • Definitional fallacies • Code word • Phantom distinction • Formal fallacies: | Confusion of the inverse • Denying the antecedent • Non sequitur • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise • Nemmeno sbagliato • Not even wrong • Chewbacca Defense • Affirming a disjunct • Illicit process • Four-term fallacy • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises • Fallacy fallacy • Substituting explanation for premise • Enthymeme • Syllogism • Formal fallacy • Existential assumption • Masked man fallacy • دوراهی اشتباهی • Self-refuting idea • Argument by gibberish • One single proof • Affirming the consequent • False dilemma • Fallacious arguments: | Bumblebee argument • Fatwa envy • Gotcha argument • Hoyle's fallacy • Intuition pump • Logic and Creation • Not Circular Reasoning • Peanut butter argument • Great Beethoven fallacy • Fallacy of unique founding conditions • Evil is the absence of God • Argument from first cause • How do you know? Were you there? • Argument from design • Argument from beauty • Appeal to nature • Solferino fallacy • Religious scientists • Nothing to hide • Argument from fine tuning • Appel à la beauté • Creep shaming • "I used to be an atheist" • Atheism as a religion • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from morality • Anti-environmentalism • Appeal to bias • Apophasis • Argumentum ad nauseam • Appeal to censorship • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Blaming the victim • Bait-and-switch • Danth's Law • Chewbacca Defense • Canard • DARVO • Demonization • Escape hatch • Friend argument • Everyone is racist • Gish Gallop • Greece-baiting • Gore's Law • Ham Hightail • Just asking questions • Leading question • Loaded language • Linking to authority • Loaded question • Lying by omission • Motte and bailey • Nazi analogies • Moving the goalposts • One single proof • Pink-baiting • One-way hash argument • Pathos gambit • Quote mining • Poisoning the well • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Race card • Red-baiting • Red herring • Release the data • Science was wrong before • Shill gambit • Straw man • Silent Majority • Uncertainty tactic • Style over substance • Terrorism-baiting • Weasel word • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Whataboutism • تقلیل به هیتلر • Bullshit • Logical fallacy • Pindakaasargument • Envenenar o poço • Banana argument • Canard (português) • Scapegoat • How come there are still monkeys? • Trees cause pollution • Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white • Ontological argument • Conditional fallacies: | Slippery slope • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Special pleading • Conditional fallacy • On the spot fallacy • Appeal to the minority • Argumentum ad populum • Professor of nothing • | Genetic fallacies: | Genetic fallacy • | | Appeals to authority: | Ipse dixit • Appeal to confidence • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from authority • Linking to authority • Silent Majority • Invincible authority • Appeal to celebrity • Ultracrepidarianism • Appeal to the minority • Appeal to identity • Weasel word • Professor of nothing • | | Ad hominem: | Ad iram • Argumentum ad cellarium • Bulverism • Poisoning the well • Blaming the victim • Tu quoque • Whataboutism • Nutpicking • Jonanism • Demonization • Argumentum ad hominem (français) • Shill gambit • Appeal to bias • Fallacy of opposition • Association fallacy • Damning with faint praise • Pathos gambit • گزاره‌ی حمله‌ی شخصی • Appeal to identity • Argumentum ad hominem • Nazi analogies • Not an argument • Nothing to hide • Envenenar o poço • Scapegoat • | Imprecision fallacies: | Apex fallacy • Overprecision • Cherry picking • Overgeneralization • Texas sharpshooter fallacy • False analogy • Appeal to fiction • Spotlight fallacy • Pragmatic fallacy • Selection bias • Anecdotal evidence • Category mistake • Nutpicking • Imprecision fallacy • Confounding factor • Fallacy of accident • Neyman's bias • Valid logical methods: | Rapoport's Rules • Negative evidence • Fallacy collections: | SeekFind • Nizkor Project • Fallacy Files • Your Logical Fallacy Is • Logically Fallacious •