This is a very good roundup on some of the inconsistencies we are taught don't matter
I know I do go on but man I love Charles Fort since I read his biography. I had read fragments of the guy previously and only now have realized he was easily a genius on par with Voltaire or Nietzsche. This man was so far ahead of his time he is difficult to fathom.
Anyway, I noticed that Theodore Dreiser often said of his friend Fort that nearly every single man who dismissed Fort as a crank failed to understand that Fort was the equivalent of any 12 year professor and more in several different subjects, the least of them being the general epistemology of knowledge itself. At the drop of a hat, Fort could quote a half dozen credible sources which had been dismissed by mainstream science in nearly every discipline because they worked their careers the exact opposite of the scientific method ... they only focused attention on results that reinforced their conclusions in advance.
I was just thinking of how many people make fun of my wild notions on animal domestication which they may never discover are actually the result of cutting edge theory which simply has not reached them yet. So often cynics laugh at my conclusions because they are basing their convictions on ideas that were abandoned in the late 1970's. For example, one of the earliest sequencings of the genome for dogs made it patently obvious that they were domesticated over a quarter million years ago. Mainstream science has been telling us that dogs were a Cro-Magnon staple produced in the last 20,000 years. Some scientists were even claiming that Cro-Magnons overcame Neanderthals not because they outnumbered them 10,000 to 1 but because they "domesticated dogs."
Fully modern breeds appear over a 100,000 years ago and dogs split from canids at least 270,000 years ago or more. Dogs and wolves have been separated into two opposing camps for more than a quarter million years and during that time, dogs really have been man's best friend.
Same result for horses. The next time you go to make fun of me as a common garden variety crank, at least do a little research into your convictions to determine if they are current. You would find in many instances you are clinging to ideas that were swept aside decades ago by analysis of genes. I didn't make this stuff up. I read a lot, like Charles Fort. I am pretty certain I would not be bright enough to shine Fort's boots. Dreiser was of the opinion that Fort knocked out most of the non-fiction in the New York Public Library in a little over 12 years under his own steam. Dreiser believed that shortly before he died, Fort had committed to memory most of the scientific literature of the 19th and 20th centuries and had decided that nine-tenths of it was absolute bunkum.
Fort said there were no canals on Mars and many intellectuals in the circle of Marconi and Lowell presented this as proof that Fort was clearly insane. They claimed the canals on Mars were such a well established fact that any layman who would even question their existence should be examined in a mental institution. Fort was right. Everybody else wrong. There were never any canals on Mars, at least none mapped out by Percival Lowell.
Global warming is the modern equivalent of canals on Mars and like Fort, I call bunkum on all of it. Made up out of a piece of whole cloth from the very beginning.