The sentence you quoted seems to have no relation to the content of your reply. Whether or not social science is a lesser form of science (and i may even agr

The sentence you quoted seems to have no relation to the content of your reply. Whether or not social science is a lesser form of science (and i may even agree with you that it is) has no bearing on two important questions: 1) Should we separate a person's character from their output. Can we celebrate a person's accomplishments even while recognizing their human flaws. [I say yes, and I think some go too paint both with the same brush] 2) Should we stop turning a blind eye to misogyny, sexual harassment, and generally hostile work environments based on an aura of genius around the person creating this, or is it just an inherent "the end justifies the means" scenario. [To this, I also say yes. One's genius is not diminished by having to be civil, respectful, or not discriminatory. See: Linus Torvald's recent revelations]. That is to say, we need to both celebrate people like Richard Feynman's accomplishments, but do so honestly and transparently that they were a product of a different time and certain of their actions are simply not acceptable in a modern society. That means neither glossing over their flaws nor dismissing them for them. In that sense, both "“predatory behaviour towards women,” without further explanation", and "Surely You're a Creep, Mr Feynman" are equally not helpful. Feynman was not a creep for his time. And his predatory behaviour needs full explanation and description in discussions of his work.