Plato wrote in a verbose manner while often making a claim that was neither logical or falsifiable; his arguments were primarily fallacious, and his philosophical theories were absurd. For example, in The Republic, you have a 100 page (roughly) bunch of gibberish that states if you act selfishly your soul will be misshapen and therefore you are destined to be unhappy. I am positive there are plenty of people that behave more selflessly than others yet they are not automatically more happy than said "others". We can't exactly prove he's incorrect in the sense the soul doesn't get misshapen because it's unfalsifiable by nature.

When someone's as verbose as Plato, discussing becomes difficult, and it's easy for you to say his arguments needed padding out of there's room for interpretation; however, if you've written over 100 pages to say something that can be summed up in 1 sentence, then I don't believe "padding" or "interpretation" should even have to be considered.

Einstein: general relativity and special relativity are monuments of physics and mathematics, undisputed,

Undisputed? He broke his own gibberish.

His theory of relativity required a math constant e.g. "3.14", and his equations revolved around said constant; he later dumped the constant and kept the same equations (when it was first believed that the universe is forever expanding), thereby rendering his own gibberish useless since he broke his own equations.

Tesla: Alternating current. Enough said.

There's thousands of inventions that were created by people, sometimes accidentally, but when students study these people at schools, colleges or whatnot, they often study their best work. It's not "enough said" to comment on one thing. Tesla was imprisoned for being crazy, his death ray didn't surface and you can go to a museum and see his nonsensical gibberish.

Freud started it all.

It's not about starting it all; this thread is about getting "more credit than it deserves". I don't doubt he's popular, in the same way as I don't doubt Shakespeare's popular (whom I also hate, because his stories were swayed by his sycophantic desire to please royalty, and his characters were wooden and two-dimensional); however, you'll also note that despite his popularity, virtually no institution to be found in any country at all, in any discipline at all, would use him as a source of information.