There are potentially objective qualms with such extreme market domination as we have collectively chosen at this point. One might objectively say: “Extreme market orientations such as we are presently experiencing can only end in ‘overgrazing,’ and, like the saber-toothed tiger, the society can only end in extinction by virtue of its own success. For this reason we must overthrow the dispositional theory…” Now that might support your Galileo identification: begins to be on a par with Neppure si muove. Still, there is a great deal to the idea of establishing the behavioral facts, with no more context than is required to observe and interpret those facts, and letting them play out as they will in the society as a whole.

An idea put forth by a person of lower status can become the ideology of a higher status group, especially if the idea presented effectively threatens the dominant nature of the high status group. I think it could be argued that the Catholic church accepted Galileo’s ideas as a way to save face and save their status. Perhaps scholars of religious history have already examined this argument.

Also, it’s not as if the Church was the only thing making Galileo’s theories look implausible. Galileo said that the earth was moving! And quickly! That’s pretty ridiculous prima facia—even without the church that seems like contradicting the one thing that everyone just knows must be true.

So, maybe you’re on to something with this deep capture stuff, but simply speaking in vague terms and using the same bad example over and over isn’t very convincing. Are there real cases of this? Maybe with cigarettes, or environmental damage, or heath care?