The whole thrust of Velikovsky's theories and argument is that "conventional, establishment science" takes into account all the evidence that supports its arguments and leaves out all the evidence that contradicts it.
And his arguments are quite persuasive because, when you take into account the facts that conventional science omits, much of its theories about the Earth and its history turns out to be doubtful and lacking. Whereas if you also take the evidence left out into account, the answers that Velikovsky offers turn out to be more persuasive than those of conventional scientists.
Read his "Ages in Chaos," "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval" and discover for yourself.
Of course conventional science rejects his arguments, because they destroy its conclusions.
I think G. B. Shaw got it right!
Often, "conventional" in this context means deliberate blindness to inconvenient facts and evidence.
:focus:
Perry
