The Galileo Gambit (Vatican Secret Archive Thrillers)

Product Information

That was about the time the Apple II first became available. It was more of a toy than a must-have device; my family did not get a computer until 1982. It was a Commodore 64, the hot home computer of the day because it had 64 kB of RAM, four times as much as any competing product. (More evidence that Gates’ comment about 640K being enough for anybody made sense at the time.) Premise: A is in set S1 Premise: A is in set S2 Premise: B is also in set S2 Conclusion: Therefore, B is in set S1. Marshall does seem to fill the bill quite well. From the Wikipedia article “The work of Marshall has produced one of the most radical and important changes in medical perception in the last 50 years.”

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.– Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 Like many American drivers, I grew up in a suburban area, and like most suburban areas in the US, there were plenty of multilane highways–surface streets, not just freeways/motorways. Often these multilane surface roads are divided highways (dual carriageways, in UK parlance), where if you are looking at oncoming traffic, either you or the oncoming driver has seriously goofed. And of course almost all motorways have two or more separate roadways each with two or more travel lanes–at least in the US, the exceptions are rare (though I live in the state with the only single carriageway interstate outside Alaska, whose interstates are not freeways). 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• Galileo’s Vindication Was Based on Evidence: Galileo’s ideas, particularly his support for heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around), were eventually accepted not because he was ridiculed, but because there was strong evidence supporting his views.Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. 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• Is–ought problem• Ad iram• Just asking questions• 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• Argumentum ad hysteria• Omnipotence paradox• Argument from etymology• Infinite regress• Argument by assertion• Argumentum ad dictionarium• Appeal to faith• Circular reasoning• Self-refuting idea•

Conceptually he and Copernicus and Kepler and a few others were correct that it was a heliocentric solar system. The problem was proving it and Galileo’s theory just did not work. A theory that predicts one tide a day is not credible.

Why do people use this tactic?

Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.– Thomas Edison, 1889 Another logical difficulty with this argument is that it implies that no scientific opinion can ever be valid unless it is rejected by the vast majority of scientists. Earth must be flat because no scientist other than a Googling Galileo in Gnowangerup says so. Tobacco must be good for you because only tobacco-industry operatives believe it. And climate change must be a hoax because only the heroic Malcolm Roberts and his Galileo Movement have seen through the conspiracy. We'd have to look at a map and figure out our Lat/Long, then plug that and a bunch of other stuff into a calculator, and out would come the azimuth and elevation to the satellite (now you just need an app) To understand what was going on, we had training aids - a globe and a bunch of string. After a couple hours it starts to make sense. But on a flat earth, it wouldn't.