The scientists you listed at least attempted to follow the scientific method as best they could in most of their professional work (although they certainly made their share of methodological errors and allowed personal biases to affect their work). Whereas most of Freud's writing was the moral equivalent of astrology: based mostly on random anecdotes and not falsifiable. Hardly equivalent.
Re:The concept of schizophrenia is dying
by dredmorbius on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:35AM
(#15593980)
That is not the original criticism you raised, nor is it the one I addressed.
Seeing a common subject, a set of boundaries, a possible (even if incorrect) set of guiding principles, can be genius. If it inspires further exploration or refinement or even rejection of ideas, it's a productive step.
Einstein railed against QM, Newton believed in alchemy, Kelvin though the Earth was 30 million years old, the list of people opposed to continental drift / plate techtonics is vast (see Naomi Oreskes several papers and books on the history of the development of that subject), Samuel Morse had what would now be dispicable views on race and religion, Ford was an anti-semite, Crick and/or Watson have their own failings, etc., etc., etc.
Much of genius is being able to jump out of and beyond the present dominant paradigm and mental models. It's not about being right but of being less wrong. Than that which came before, not after.