When it comes to scientific advancement and learning, I'm with Khem on this one. I don't think it's possible to discard some intellectual or scientific achievement based simply on the person(s) involved being terrible. It's not like we can 'un-learn' something in a scientific field once it comes out that a certain scientist cheated on his wife and kicked a bunch of puppies, for example. It's entirely possible (and reasonable) to recognize the usefulness or ingenuity of an advancement and also (where applicable) recognize that the person(s) involved were shitty people and should not serve as role models to emulate, rather than pressing a reset button on years in a field because a prominent scientist said a bunch of nasty words about black people.
If something is 'discarded' or 'un-learned', it should be based on the merits of the idea itself, not the people behind it. A mathematician could be a horrendous racist or sexist, but that has no bearing on whether or not his/her theorems and calculations are credible. Conversely, someone might be the sweetest, most humanitarian being in the world, but that doesn't make the pseudoscience of phrenology any more credible.
If something is 'discarded' or 'un-learned', it should be based on the merits of the idea itself, not the people behind it. A mathematician could be a horrendous racist or sexist, but that has no bearing on whether or not his/her theorems and calculations are credible. Conversely, someone might be the sweetest, most humanitarian being in the world, but that doesn't make the pseudoscience of phrenology any more credible.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson
