3 ms·

For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass windows and such' and beside that, our capacity to remember people is independent of stained-glassed windows. I

by pvg 5y ago

For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass windows and such' and beside that, our capacity to remember people is independent of stained-glassed windows. It takes overly broad, maximalist interpretations to make this into much of an argument to begin with.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass windows and such' Then why did this guy have one to begin with? > our capacity to remember people is independent of stained-glassed windows. Then why do we build them for people we do like? The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously notable for something good and notable for something bad doesn't cancel out and make them notable for nothing. They did the good thing they did, which we should remember, and they did the bad thing they did, which we should also remember. But institutions have the incentive to present only the good in their histories. Which is how we forget our mistakes and make them again. You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and build whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his bad acts.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and build whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his bad acts. Ironically, the article includes a photo of someone who has done just that: stencilled some critical graffiti. It's in the process of being erased. The author who is so keen to preserve the window doesn't seem to mind that opinion being cancelled. But probably neither windows nor graffiti are actually good ways to evaluate historical figures and their good and bad contributions to science.
- pvg 5y ago
  Which is how we forget our mistakes and make them again. It's not, though, that's just the somewhat circular premise of your argument. Nobody is forgetting this guy. He's on the Nobel Prize site, on Wikipedia, in the scientific literature, etc. Fiddling with a stained glassed window doesn't change any of that. Society changing its mind about whom to honour, how and where is a thing that happens all the time. The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously notable for something good and notable for something bad doesn't cancel out and make them notable for nothing. Installing or removing a stained glass window is not really taking a position on this supposed 'problem'.
- geofft 5y ago
  > Then why did this guy have one to begin with? Because the college wanted to celebrate itself and demonstrate how it has notable alumni. So any alum of any defensible level of notability would have worked here. Nobody looked at the story of Sir Ronald Fisher and decided he need a window somewhere; they looked at the yearbooks of Gonville and Caius and found who could fit on the windows. If we can at least be honest about that, then we can conclude that the college has a vested interest in claiming that the guy is stained-glass-window-worthy, and therefore the fact that he has a stained-glass window now is not a reliable argument that he ought to have one.

by pvg 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass windows and such' Then why did this guy have one to begin with? > our capacity to remember people is independent of stained-glassed windows. Then why do we build them for people we do like? The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously notable for something good and notable for something bad doesn't cancel out and make them notable for nothing. They did the good thing they did, which we should remember, and they did the bad thing they did, which we should also remember. But institutions have the incentive to present only the good in their histories. Which is how we forget our mistakes and make them again. You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and build whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his bad acts.

notahacker 5y ago
> You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and build whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his bad acts. Ironically, the article includes a photo of someone who has done just that: stencilled some critical graffiti. It's in the process of being erased. The author who is so keen to preserve the window doesn't seem to mind that opinion being cancelled. But probably neither windows nor graffiti are actually good ways to evaluate historical figures and their good and bad contributions to science.
pvg 5y ago
Which is how we forget our mistakes and make them again. It's not, though, that's just the somewhat circular premise of your argument. Nobody is forgetting this guy. He's on the Nobel Prize site, on Wikipedia, in the scientific literature, etc. Fiddling with a stained glassed window doesn't change any of that. Society changing its mind about whom to honour, how and where is a thing that happens all the time. The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously notable for something good and notable for something bad doesn't cancel out and make them notable for nothing. Installing or removing a stained glass window is not really taking a position on this supposed 'problem'.
geofft 5y ago
> Then why did this guy have one to begin with? Because the college wanted to celebrate itself and demonstrate how it has notable alumni. So any alum of any defensible level of notability would have worked here. Nobody looked at the story of Sir Ronald Fisher and decided he need a window somewhere; they looked at the yearbooks of Gonville and Caius and found who could fit on the windows. If we can at least be honest about that, then we can conclude that the college has a vested interest in claiming that the guy is stained-glass-window-worthy, and therefore the fact that he has a stained-glass window now is not a reliable argument that he ought to have one.