Passing off guesses as knowledge only works as a career if you try to dress up your guesses as knowledge...
What he wrote was essentially common knowledge at the time, not a novel theory that needed defending. That’s why elsewhere in this thread it is pointed out that you can’t judge it by today’s standards. We have different common knowledge today that people use as justifications for their opinions without feeling any need to cite a paper. Some of that knowledge is right and some wrong.
For a modern example, you could take a look at a comment that says his conclusions were wrong without citing any evidence.
Comments
What he wrote was essentially common knowledge at the time, not a novel theory that needed defending. That’s why elsewhere in this thread it is pointed out that you can’t judge it by today’s standards. We have different common knowledge today that people use as justifications for their opinions without feeling any need to cite a paper. Some of that knowledge is right and some wrong.
For a modern example, you could take a look at a comment that says his conclusions were wrong without citing any evidence.
From a social standpoint, uncritically repeating what everybody thinks is acceptable. From a scientific standpoint, it is not.
You seem to be making a lot of arguments about science and how things have to happen without citing any papers or evidence.