Engineers and inventors have an unfortunate tendency of getting entrenched in controversies. It is wonderful to be able to say "I told you so", and to feel more clever than the rest. I am no stranger to this kind of behaviour, but I do try to stay polite and go the extra mile to convince others within their own frame of reference, instead of insisting on the use of a "better" one.
The menu on this website gives some discussions of what I consider to be erroneous aircraft design ideas, like canards and T-tails. In other parts of the web site I tackle an almost universal, but flawed interpretation of the wing aspect ratio.
I will briefly discuss below the most heated aeronautical argument of all, which I believe is completely unnecessary because there is no contradiction.
The most common argument in aircraft engineering is about the "cause" of wing lift. There is a perceived conflict between the "Newtonian" view that a wing generates lift by bending air down, and the "Bernoulli" view that it is all due to pressure differences between regions of faster and slower local flow.
Of course the contradiction is spurious, because the Bernoulli equations are derived directly from Newton's equations. The two are in full accord, and they are both right.
The Newtonian view is more enlightening when considering finite wings, including tip loss. We might call this 3D flow. There are chapters on this website, in particular the ones on propellers, which dive deeply into this view. These ideas can only be fully appreciated by a long, hard look at vortex theory.
The Bernoulli view is more instructive when looking at details of the flow around 2D wing sections ( but also fuselages, and other streamline bodies ). Local pressures and velocities are needed to understand boundary layer separation and viscous drag. Both views are needed for a full picture, but they never contradict.
The only real mistake that is repeated over and over again is the so-called "equal path fallacy". This states that wing lift is caused by the longer path, hence larger velocity, over the curved top of a wing versus the flat bottom.
It is simply not true that the streamlines that separated at the wing leading edge meet up at the same time at the wing trailing edge. There is a permanent shift in position between the two.
The problem is maybe in believing that a wing can leave behind such a permanent shift in position between one half of the infinite atmosphere above it and one half below it. But this is due the nature of the mathematics. A true "potential" ( zero friction ) flow influences the whole universe, like it or not.
It is only by the 3D ( Newtonian, if you like ) concept of the starting vortex left far, far behind on the runway, that this position shift is reversed.