|Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal)|
Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal)
The Galileo argument is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.
The Galileo Wannabe fallacy / Galileo argument occurs when an appeal to pity fallacy is committed while making a comparison to what Galileo went through. Of course, this is very rarely done, but it perhaps has happened at least once. More often, this fallacy is used for fallacy abuse.
The Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument can take one of two different forms. One is to state it as a fake formal fallacy and the other is to state it as an informal fallacy of appeal to pity.
Examples of the Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal)
Of course, if this statement were ever made, it would be a fallacy. The statement was never made. It is a straw man argument. The fact is that anyone who doesn't bow to the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story will be ignored, suppressed, and censored. That proves that something is dreadfully wrong with the system. It proves that the scientific system is still in the same status as it was when Galileo was ignored, suppressed, and censored. Human nature has not changed.
Most of the time, the discussions go something like this:
In this case, the Galileo Argument or the Galileo Wannabe Fallacy is being used to commit fallacy abuse. Here, it is merely a defense for an appeal to tradition fallacy. One website titled their article: "The Galileo fallacy and denigration of scientific consensus." Think about that. The denigration of scientific consensus. Strange that consensus means that everyone is in agreement at least to the point that they are willing to sign off on it. "It," in this case, may be the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story or "it" may be the Global Warming story. The two stories are not unrelated, since the Global Warming story assumes that Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. Consensus is achieved by eliminating anyone who openly disagrees. That is a pretty weak consensus. It is similar to the consensus that Mussolini achieved through fascism. In fact, it is a form of fascism where control is maintained by getting rid of anyone who voices opposition. So, it's not surprising that Atheists would want to cover their tracks with a smoke screen on this one by creating a new fake-fallacy.
Last updated: Sep, 2014
Toons & Vids
Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of)
Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term
Logical Fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals / Fallacy of the Consequent / Converting a Conditional
Logical Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct / Fallacy of the Alternative Disjunct / False Exclusionary Disjunct / Affirming One Disjunct / Logical Fallacy of the Alternative Syllogism / Asserting an Alternative / Improper Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent / Inverse Error / Fallacy of the Inverse / Invalid modus tollens
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Process
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Minor
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using All
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "Some"
Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are Not
Logical Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct
Logical Fallacy of Negative Premise / Illicit Negative / Drawing a Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises
Logical Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit Affirmative
Logical Fallacy of Existential Instantiation / Existential Fallacy
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
Logical Fallacy of Four Terms
Logical Fallacy of Necessity / Felacia Necassitas
Logical Fallacy of False Conversion / Illicit Conversion
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Contraposition
Formal Logical Fallacy Illicit Substitution of Identicals / Hooded Man Fallacy / Masked Man Fallacy / Intensional Fallacy / Epistemic Fallacy / Leibniz' Law Fallacy
Formal Logical Fallacy of Confusing "if" with "if and only if"
Logical Fallacy of Negating Antecedent and Consequent / Improper Transposition
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "OR"
Logical Fallacy of Confusion of "Necessary" with "Sufficient" Condition
Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal)
Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio Terminorum
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures