Alright, but both the examples you gave eventually showed the math behind their observations. Where did Velikovsky show the math that explains his observations?
I'm sure you understand that Velikovsky was making qualitative arguments, not quantitative ones, which is one reason why they didn't lend themselves well to chemistry. Einstein also pointed out that his own essential work was qualitative - inferring from straightforward observations what the likely truth of a concept would be.
As an example in Velikovsky's case, the simple cause-and-effect observations that if Venus were a young body, it would likely be hot, have a pristine surface, and a rotation anomalous to the other planets, all of which proved to be true. One official outlook, preferred over Velikovsky's, is that Venus has been "globally resurfaced by unknown forces." Not much math in that one.