Who can contradict you, if you only wrap up your assertions in specious phrases that not one man in a million attempts to ascertain the real meaning of?
We like so much to be saved the trouble of thinking, that it is far easier and more comfortable to be led than to contradict, to fall in quietly with the great flock of sheep that jump blindly after their leader than to remain apart, making one's self ridiculous by foolishly attempting to argue.
Real argument, in fact, is very difficult, for several reasons: first, you must understand your subject _well_, which is hardly likely; secondly, your opponent must also understand it well, which is even less likely; thirdly, you must listen patiently to his arguments, which is still less likely; and fourthly, he must listen to yours, the least likely of all.

If a quack advertises a panacea for all human ills at a dollar a bottle, a hundred will buy the bottle, for one that will try how many are killed by it.

What would the investigator gain by charging the quack with murder?
Nobody would believe him, because nobody would take the trouble to follow his arguments.

His adversary, first in the field, had gained the popular ear, and remained the unassailable master of the situation.

Our love of "Science" rests upon our admiration of intellect, only unfortunately the intellect is too often that of other people, not our own.
The very sound of Belfast's phrases, for instance, "satellite," "lunar attraction," "immutable path of its orbit," etc, convinced the greater part of the "intelligent" community that he who used them so flippantly must be an exceedingly great man.