Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they? Seems like a slam dunk in todays world that they would be taken seriously.
At least by the majority of rational people.
Though I get the point you were trying to make, the fact that you gave two scientists as examples is deliciously ironic.
> Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they?
Not really. The heliocentric systems of Copernicus and Galileo didn't do much better at predicting heavenly motion than did the earlier geocentric systems such as the Ptolemaic system. They were still largely implicitly based on the assumption of an intelligent creator (God) who would make the universe follow laws that were aesthetically pleasing geometrically/mathematically. Any observations that didn't fit the pleasing laws of
a theorist's theory were dismissed as some kind of observational error or some kind of optical illusion or some such.
Galileo's trouble with the Church wasn't due to heliocentrism per se. The Church's position at the time was that if some empirical observation of the world (which God made) clearly contradicted their interpretation of something in the Bible it must be because they misinterpreted that part of the Bible.
Galileo's trouble was more due him being a genius who was also a major asshole with a big ego and a poor sense of politics.
His genius brought fame, which brought him to the attention of the rich and powerful. His ego fed on their attention, loving to play the roll of the celebrity. His ego also led him to be an asshole to people he considered lesser or his rivals. And his poor sense of politics made him clueless that some of those "lesser" people had a lot of political power and could make his life miserable if he kept being an asshole to them.
At least by the majority of rational people.
Though I get the point you were trying to make, the fact that you gave two scientists as examples is deliciously ironic.