Should we discard achievements made by unlikable people?

[bennyboy]

I'm not doubting this story, but how do we know they didn't fudge the data if we can't recreate it ourselves. That's how we confirm science,  by recreating experiments.

Also a lot of that just sounds like torturing people, not a valid controlled (repeatable) experiment.

Also what is the undeniable positive influence on medicine? Can you be more specific? I mean, antibiotics had been invented so the plague wasn't really a problem.

The beginning of science isn't a controlled experiment. It's observation. "What happens if we stick these guys in freezing water? What happens if we saw off their arms?" By the time you make a controlled experiment, you're already about halfway through the process.

Also, recreating experiments isn't always necessary. Some experiments lay the groundwork for prediction-- someone else has done the experimentation, and the proof is in the predictive power of a resultant theory, equation, or relationship that couldn't have been determined without the experimentation.

For example, I don't need to recreate Newton's experiments to know what gravity is. That science has been done already, and the subsequent experiments can safely rely on it until for some reason (or in some new context) it is no longer reliable.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not doubting this story, but how do we know they didn't fudge the data if we can't recreate it ourselves. That's how we confirm science,  by recreating experiments.

Also a lot of that just sounds like torturing people, not a valid controlled (repeatable) experiment.

Also what is the undeniable positive influence on medicine? Can you be more specific? I mean, antibiotics had been invented so the plague wasn't really a problem.

The beginning of science isn't a controlled experiment. It's observation. "What happens if we stick these guys in freezing water? What happens if we saw off their arms?" By the time you make a controlled experiment, you're already about halfway through the process.

Also, recreating experiments isn't always necessary. Some experiments lay the groundwork for prediction-- someone else has done the experimentation, and the proof is in the predictive power of a resultant theory, equation, or relationship that couldn't have been determined without the experimentation.

For example, I don't need to recreate Newton's experiments to know what gravity is. That science has been done already, and the subsequent experiments can safely rely on it until for some reason (or in some new context) it is no longer reliable.

You don't have to recreate Newton's experiments because lots of other people already had. Not so with the Nazi experiments. Also is it groundwork? Sure. I'm not at all convinced that we couldn't have gotten there without torturing people to death. We could have reached the same conclusion.

Its so strange that people think we learned so much applicable science but normally can just come up with the hypothermia example. Which is both extemely minor, and probably something we could have figured out anyway. And, like I said, we can't validate their data anyway.

[GUBU]

We've had this discussion with regard to civil war greats like General Lee, and now with cinematic greats like Harvey Weinstein.  I'm pretty sure if we knew more about Socrates or Sam Harris, about Ghandi or about Joe Rogan, we'd find quite the horror.

I've looked in my mirror more, and I have to say that I've seen the entire gamut of horrors and greatness in myself-- deep, deep depravity, inexplicable generosity, complete selfishness, and life-risking altruism.

Is it possible that Cosby, when he's in the public, actually IS a great guy?  Or is it that he is always, 24/7, a monster, and he's hiding the truth?  Am I a 24/7 monster too, someone who has imagined rape, murder, theft or violence in the past, but have had either the discipline (or the simple lack of opportunity) to keep my actions under control?

It depends mostly on the level of achievement, the number of achievements made by that person and whether he made them through talent or luck.

For example I respect and honour Newton's achievements because despite being an absolute shit of a man he more than passes the bar on all three of my criteria.

On the other hand I look at Julian Assange and I discount his achievement with wikileaks because in addition to being an absolute shit of a man what he did before and since makes it obvious that he absolutely fluked into wikileaks in the first place.

[GUBU]

Newton was an ass. Don't even get me started on Tesla.

I think you're getting Tesla mistaken for Edison.

[c172]

We've had this discussion with regard to civil war greats like General Lee, and now with cinematic greats like Harvey Weinstein.  I'm pretty sure if we knew more about Socrates or Sam Harris, about Ghandi or about Joe Rogan, we'd find quite the horror.

I've looked in my mirror more, and I have to say that I've seen the entire gamut of horrors and greatness in myself-- deep, deep depravity, inexplicable generosity, complete selfishness, and life-risking altruism.

Is it possible that Cosby, when he's in the public, actually IS a great guy?  Or is it that he is always, 24/7, a monster, and he's hiding the truth?  Am I a 24/7 monster too, someone who has imagined rape, murder, theft or violence in the past, but have had either the discipline (or the simple lack of opportunity) to keep my actions under control?

Back in high school, there were plenty of people I didn't like who did a lot better than me academically and socially. I still respect what they have accomplished. As far as Cosby, nothing can take away that he has done some amazing good as far as just studying and working to become talented in his industry. That is talent I do not have. 

None of that takes away that he is a monster, though, and I just never realized it when watching Picture Pages or The Cosby Show or whatever else. 

They are both part of him.

[bennyboy]

Back in high school, there were plenty of people I didn't like who did a lot better than me academically and socially. I still respect what they have accomplished. As far as Cosby, nothing can take away that he has done some amazing good as far as just studying and working to become talented in his industry. That is talent I do not have. 

None of that takes away that he is a monster, though, and I just never realized it when watching Picture Pages or The Cosby Show or whatever else. 

They are both part of him.

Should I feel guilty about watching Cosby Show reruns?  Should I avoid doing so? Should stations pull all his work from syndication? Should there be a grace period during which he is kept in anonymity?

If I found out that Nietzsche was a rapist, should I refuse to read his works?

[c172]

Who am I to say what anybody else should do?

[surreptitious57]

It all depends on whether or not you can separate the good from the bad within someone. That does not mean you are justifying what bad they have done if you can
separate it. Rather that you do not use it to invalidate any good they may have done. I do not think there is a definitive answer to this question. It is purely subjective
I can easily separate the good from the bad up to the point of total revulsion but also understand that not everyone can do this and nor would I expect them to either

[bennyboy]

Yeah, my current feeling is that there is a statute of limitations-- maybe the natural lifespan of the victims.

I probably wouldn't want to purchase a Cosby video, even though I think his videos are very funny, because he might get some benefit from it. But if I found out that Charlie Chaplin was a rapist, I'd be more likely to say, "Well. . . those were different times I suppose, and this is mainly a historical interest."

I have to say that I'm deliberately trying NOT to find out what movies some of these Hollywood guys were involved in, because I'm worried that knowledge would lessen my enjoyment of some truly enjoyable movies. I suppose that's pretty selfish. But movies are a big part of our lives, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the great thing about books; the protagonists don't rape folks lest they're 'sposed to.