Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Appeal to Pity)

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 (Appeal to Pity)

"Don't you feel sorry for me. I am being treated just as Galileo was treated. Therefore, the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story is a bunch of baloney."

That would indeed to an appeal to pity if someone were to do that. More likely, the dogmatic Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man believers interpret what was said to be an appeal to pity. Most of the time, the discussions go something like this:

Fallacy Abuse

Sandy: "If the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story isn't the only possible answer to the history of the Universe, then why are there no articles defaming it in the Secular Humanist scientific journals."

Rocky: "Because, just as in Galileo's day, the ruling elite among the scientists protect their sacred cow theories."

Sandy: "Don't cry on my shoulder. That is just the Galileo Argument Fallacy, an appeal to pity."

Rocky: "You brought up the scientific journals as evidence. They are corrupt and cannot be used as evidence in the way that you are attempting to use them. In other words, your argument is circular"

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.