You&#x27;re missing the point of the discussion. The point is that observation is a far less straightforward thing than it&#x27;s sometimes made out to be. It is clear <i>with hindsight</i> that Galileo was indeed observing the moons of Jupiter, but it was far from clear at the time. The reports of people who didn&#x27;t see anything are no more &quot;anecdotal&quot; than Galileo&#x27;s reports that he did see something, and there is little reason to doubt the veracity of either set of reports. It is well known that there&#x27;s a certain knack to seeing things through telescopes and microscopes, and if you look through one for the first time you may simply fail to see what a trained observer sees. Neither the telescope nor human visual perception were well understood at the time, and it must have been difficult to know what to make of the conflicting reports. Feyerabend&#x27;s entire argument depends on the assumption that Galileo was - at least in retrospect - doing the right thing. However, the right thing in this instance turned out to require the violation of pretty much every prescription of the &quot;scientific method&quot;.