While critics contend that the views expounded on in Against Method are tantamount to scientific anarchism, its author Paul Feyerabend maintains that his views stem not from a desire to promote scientific chaos so much as from a recognition that many of the fundamental tenets of science – rationality, empiricism, and objectivity, for example – are as seriously flawed as the "subjective" paths to truth that scientists are quick to repudiate. Feyerabend goes further by arguing that many methods that are now condemned in the scientific community played a critical role in historical moments of scientific progress. The fact that these methods helped science advance in the past indicates that scientists should think twice before they condemn them. Much of Against Method is a case study of the events surrounding Galileo's single-handed rejection of the geocentric cosmological model in favor of the updated heliocentric model. Feyerabend goes to lengths to point out that what ultimately allowed Galileo to succeed in convincing the Western world that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around) was the use of methods most modern scientists would deem highly suspect. For example, in attempting to explain why the rotation of the earth did not cause a rock dropped from a tower to follow a curved, rather than a straight, path, Galileo relied on several as-yet unproven hypotheses about the laws of motion, essentially begging the question for his own position. Additionally, his published works display a rhetorical style that reads more like propaganda than like scholarly work. By showing that these methods were critical to a crucial scientific advancement, Feyerabend casts doubt on whether these "unscientific" practices really deserve the criticism they so often garner.