Not a Nobel prize winner (somewhat shockingly, given the contribution), and he wasn't (to my understanding) so much ridiculed, but when The Great Debate occurred, which was a debate about whether or not galaxies besides our own existed,
> if Andromeda were not part of the Milky Way, then its distance must have been on the order of 108 light years—a span most contemporary astronomers would not accept.
the size and distance of these objects (galaxies) seemed far too absurdly large to one side of the debate to be accurate; it would mean the size of the universe would be absolutely enormous. Of course,
> it is now known that the Milky Way is only one of as many as an estimated 200 billion (2×1011)[1] to 2 trillion (2×1012) or more galaxies[2][3] proving Curtis the more accurate party in the debate.
> if Andromeda were not part of the Milky Way, then its distance must have been on the order of 108 light years—a span most contemporary astronomers would not accept.
the size and distance of these objects (galaxies) seemed far too absurdly large to one side of the debate to be accurate; it would mean the size of the universe would be absolutely enormous. Of course,
> it is now known that the Milky Way is only one of as many as an estimated 200 billion (2×1011)[1] to 2 trillion (2×1012) or more galaxies[2][3] proving Curtis the more accurate party in the debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_(astronomy) — I think it's an interesting read, and a good example of how sometimes the right answer can seem absolutely wrong.