[dmitriid_y]

With the benefit of history, we know Ohm was more right than wrong. So -- even if these critics where hitting on a very real inconsistency of Ohm's research in their pursuit of the virtue of peer review -- they fell victim to the arrogance of their ivory tower.

The pitch-perfect critique would've had to be "You've got some great work, but this bit here is hard to follow or outright inconsistent". Instead, they shouted him out of the profession because of the surety of their convictions.

[hattmall]

This is still a huge problem today because at a certain level most people's benefit proposition switches from the pursuit of discovery to maintenance of the status quo.