Unironically comparing yourself to Galileo is painful to read. It makes me feel embarrassed for the author. What is the point of this comparison? Actually pers

Unironically comparing yourself to Galileo is painful to read. It makes me feel embarrassed for the author. What is the point of this comparison? Actually persuading whatever fraction of a percentage of your readers who literally believe "scientists can NEVER be wrong"? The actual point of making such a comparison really just seems to be reassurance to your side of the argument, all while sneaking in an ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you by comparing them to the Inquisition. Extraordinary claims do not simply require other extraordinary claims to have been true before. The author is apparently cognizant of this, so he should drop this self-aggrandizing cliche.