You appear to have presented the following argument:

If prominent mathematicians don't frequently disagree with others about math, they become unemployed.

This group's opinions on the subject are less correlated with reality than most groups'.

... as an argument which would be a bad inference to make even if the premise was true - bad enough as to be worth using as an argument by analogy. You seem to be defending this position even when it is pointed out that the conclusion would obviously follow from the counterfactual premise. This was a time when "Oops" (or perhaps just dropping the point) would have been a better response.