Not my favorite kind of argument: (1) Show in detail how "the establishment" in some historical controversy was spectacularily wrong. (2) Use this as proof for the superiority of your own position in a completely unrelated modern debate.
There was a submission some time ago which used the same device to argue against global warming. Since "the powers that be" had been wrong in the case of Galileo, then obviously the mainstream belief in man-made climate change was the same kind of wrong-headed belief in unscientific dogma. I have seen the same kind of argument for Creationism - since science was wrong in the case of the ether and frenology, then obviously the theory of evolution is also wrong.
On the other hand, the arguments that FDA is using today to combat the use of checklists (also for sterilization) are almost exactly the same.
These arguments make a lot of sense when there is a common cognitive error. For example, the cognitive error that caused mistake A is also causing mistake B. I don't have enough domain expertise to say whether or not that was the case in this article, for its intended purpose.
There was a submission some time ago which used the same device to argue against global warming. Since "the powers that be" had been wrong in the case of Galileo, then obviously the mainstream belief in man-made climate change was the same kind of wrong-headed belief in unscientific dogma. I have seen the same kind of argument for Creationism - since science was wrong in the case of the ether and frenology, then obviously the theory of evolution is also wrong.