I think, as with many paradigm changing and major ideas, its novelty required a change in the prevailing thinking of the epoch, which always makes people uncomf

I think, as with many paradigm changing and major ideas, its novelty required a change in the prevailing thinking of the epoch, which always makes people uncomfortable--according to wikipedia most objections were to Cantor's notion of transfinite numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor There's even a separate article on objections to his theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Cantor%27s_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Cantor%27s_th... Seems like the notion of "completed infinity" which sort of gives infinity ontological status (? I'm no mathematician) did not sit well with some--I guess I could understand why--it definitely isn't an intuitive notion: "Before Cantor, the notion of infinity was often taken as a useful abstraction which helped mathematicians reason about the finite world; for example the use of infinite limit cases in calculus. The infinite was deemed to have at most a potential existence, rather than an actual existence.[18] "Actual infinity does not exist. What we call infinite is only the endless possibility of creating new objects no matter how many exist already".[19] Carl Friedrich Gauss's views on the subject can be paraphrased as: 'Infinity is nothing more than a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits. The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics'.[20] In other words, the only access we have to the infinite is through the notion of limits, and hence, we must not treat infinite sets as if they have an existence exactly comparable to the existence of finite sets." I guess this shows that the overall pragmatic value of your work may eventually win out against formal refutations.