I'm puzzled by this. As far as I can understand from your argument, a bunch of scientists didn't apply scientific method as well as they could. Meanwhile, another bunch did apply scientific method more objectively. And objectivity won out.

Where is the problem? There is an implicit, and idealistic, assumption here that science is flawed because the implementation scientists have is less than perfect and new ideas are not accepted instantly - despite there being very good reasons for this, and, in the long run, all of this working perfectly well to advance human knowledge.