click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
SeekFind Logo Menu

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)

"Galileo was ignored, suppressed, and censored and he was right. I am ignored, suppressed, and censored, therefore, I am right."

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:

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: "So, your reasoning is: Galileo was ignored, suppressed, and censored, and he was right. You are ignored, suppressed, and censored. Therefore, you are right. That is faulty logic."

Rocky: "That is not my reasoning. That is your straw man argument."

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
How God Will Transform You - FREE Book  

Bread Crumbs

Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies     >   Fallacies of Invalid Form     >   Galileo Argument (Formal)








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

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman


Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise


Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

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

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science


Public School Failures

Twisting History

How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness