I’m glad there’s someone else out there with the same concerns.

I’d be more glad if unknowns and inconsistencies were frankly acknowledged. Even though in some senses Feynman contributed to the metaphorical tech debt, one of the things I love about his lectures is his frankness in regard to the (then) current state of knowledge, and about how much was simply unknown. Much of that is still unknown, and there are major glaring inconsistencies that are handwaved into oblivion.

To be clear, this is not an “anti-science” comment, but rather a desire to see the institution of science become more consistent, and to address unknowns honestly.