Talk:Galileo gambit

	This fallacious arguments related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

There's an artistic corallary--just because you're misunderstood, does not make you an artist. Researcher 22:08, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Feel free to add equivalents for other fields. - User $\pi$ 22:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Are we certain they still disbelieve Galileo over there? MarcusCicero 12:54, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Over where? ħuman 18:11, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

I didn't know they ever "disbelieved Galileo" to begin with? And why do you ask? There's no mention (or at least, I didn't see one yesterday) of CP in the article? ħuman 15:57, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe move?

The "Galileo gambit" appears to be a more widely used phrase for this? tmtoulouse 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well at least create a redirect from there to here... ħuman 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion at the heart of the page

"There is no real correlation between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct". Evidence please for this assertion, or else remove or acknowledge that it is merely a speculative presumption (and highly dubious given so many cases of great ideas being at first rejected). Of course it can still be the case that most ideas that are rejected are unsound (though in my experience, the vast majority of ideas /in general/ are unsound). A fact which makes it all the harder for sound innovators to be appreciated as they get lumped in with those errants. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.143.52.188 / talk / contribs}

Far more dubious ideas are rejected than the occasional good ones. The bad ones stay rejected and the good ones become accepted. ħuman 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be right because you've followed proper scientific method, not because you're mocked for being wrong, I think is the heart of the matter. Galileo used Science and Logic to prove his Theories, while others who disbelieved him used Observation and Faith, Just because you're mocked for being Wrong, does not make you right.HKJGN (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied." - Claud Cockburn — Madfoot (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We're number one!

First hit on Google for Galileo gambit. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Somehow we're above Orac...and an AIDS denial site. Nice. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This article in nonsense!

Firstly, I tried to create an account on this site, but it doesn't work! It says "incorrect confirmation code" without asking for one! Not a good start! Also, you guys can't spell! It says: What is the name of our webiste?

Anyway, there is no evidence that anyone has ever held the so-called "Galileo gambit", in anything like the sense that is attributed here! To hold such a notion would be ridiculous and irrational. I would like to point out that the attribution to your opponents of the weakest and sillyest possible view is not how rational debate should be conducted! It is a dirty trick, designed to discredit your opponents by making them out to be cranks! Doing so is unlikely to win you guys any respect ... Stephen Thorpe

I don't fully agree. Of course, one should not discredit one's opponent rhetorically. But if someone uses some rhetorical strategems I suppose the Galileo gambit to be one of, it is completely valid to unveil this. For my share, I critisize arguments rather than the people who use them, so I don't see unveiling a Galileo gambit (or some other strategem) as a dirty trick but as a strategy to repel a dirty trick. And yes, there are many examples of the Galileo gambit, especially by opponents of Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Jens Philip Höhmann, from Germany

It's used repeatedly. It's practically the entire basis of the science was wrong before trope, and is used by people like Archimedes Plutonium and Dewey Larson to name two cranks off the top of my head. ^sshole 12:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The original complainer may have a small point: the article is not very well worded and may not adequately convey the meaning to someone who encounters the concept for the first time. A lot of RW's articles, especially the older ones, have a similar problem - they were created some time in the past, people link to them, but rarely read them (and improve them), assuming most of the work has been done.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion regarding early Christianity and the Galileo Gambit

There are really a whole lot of problems with the statement "supported" by citation 2. In no particular order,

• "Would the disciples die for a lie" is not an example of the Galileo gambit, because one of the premises (with which you may agree or disagree) is that the disciples in question knew whether Christianity, or at least the idea that Jesus was resurrected, was true, and that their willingness to be martyred is evidence that they sincerely believed their own teachings about Jesus, or at the very least that some post-mortal reward awaited them. The mere fact that the persecution existed is not (as far as I am aware) offered as evidence that Christianity is true.
• Discussing the Donatists is utterly irrelevant to the question anyway, because the Donatist schism was an event of the 4th century, whereas the disciples discussed in the "wtddfal" argument were allegedly Jesus' contemporaries, or close to it.
• The article cited also does not suggest that this persecution was planned for the purpose of supporting Christianity's claims (which would be nonsensical, given that these 4th-century Christians had no way to acquire direct knowledge of the truth or falsehood of Christianity), but the current text of the Wiki page suggests that this was part of a Church plan (which would also be ridiculous, as the Church discouraged seeking out persecution, as mentioned on the linked wiki page itself).

This statement should be supported or removed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Belisarius / talk / contribs} 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That the disciples would suffer persecution rather than to change faith shows indeed that they held that belief sincerely. It does not mean that belief is true. Yet, the point is often argued that way: That such devotion to a faith means that the faith must be true. This is fallacious and in fact an example of the Galileo gambit. Your second point is confusing since I do not dee the Donatists mentioned anywhere in the article. And as for your third point, that's just the usual tone of snark employed on this wiki. Nobody is seriously suggesting that there was a grand master plan by the church, it's just a bit of mockery. ^{— Unsigned, by: Octo8 / talk / contribs}

"Would the disciples die for a lie" is used as evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs, which I've acknowledged. The Galileo Gambit refers to the strategy of pointing to the persecution itself as being evidence that the persecuted belief is right. Enduring persecution for maintaining a given belief is perfectly reasonable evidence that one actually holds those beliefs -- if I were going to be killed if I did not renounce my religious views, my continued adherence to those views is strong evidence that I was sincere in my religious views. It is not evidence that those views were correct, but insisting that my sincerity is evidence that my views were correct is a different fallacy entirely. The Galileo Gambit is to point to persecution or marginalization of a viewpoint as evidence in favor of this viewpoint. Moreover, even if this were a correct classification of the "would the disciples die for a lie" argument, the citation that immediately follows the sentence links to an article on Donatism, which was an early-4th-century phenomenon and isn't related at all to "would the disciples die for a lie." ^{— Unsigned, by: Belisarius / talk / contribs}

Sarah Palin? Blood libel?

The paragraph in "The Galileo gambit in politics" beginning with "Since the only way for anyone to counter the use of this dodge is to use it themselves..." is murky and starts with a flawed premise. The overwhelming majority of Galileo gambits may simply be countered with "you are not Galileo." Equivalently, "here are the specifics of your error."

If this paragraph is to stay, it needs more explanation of Palin's blood libel claims. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the banks?

Pope Leo XI, dies days after becoming pope and is replaced by Pope Paul V. Galileo was well known to be working for the Medici family at the time, and Paul V is the one who went after Galileo. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I really wouldn't be surprised if Paul had Leo murdered and then went after not just the Medicis but anyone who would associate with them. Galileo is saved from execution only by the actions of the Medicis. I bring this up because when someone starts with the Galileo gambit, I want to just snark that "oh, so which international banking family is backing you?"CorruptUser (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible epigram

This article is already overloaded with quotes, but I have an appropriate lyric:

“”They all laughed at A. Graham Bell! They all laughed at Edison, and also at Einstein! So why should I feel sorry if they just couldn't understand the reasoning and the logic that went on in my head?

—Lambert, Hendricks, and Ross, "Twisted"

El More FUD (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect

How often does the DK effect come into play with the Galileo gambit?

There are just enough cases of 'outlier scientific and other predictions and extrapolations' being 'proved true' for the Gg-ists to take false comfort (but not understanding the expertise and knowledge behind the process). Anna Livia (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Jonathan Swift had a similar thought.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him" - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)