[southernplaces7]

Go ahead and name these "problematic" claims if you like. It's long since tiresome to see so many historical figures with co much to recommend them being judged through an obsession with their failures to live and think like 21st century human beings of a specific and still very debatable set of morals.

[tshaddox]

I’m confident you can find the claims in mere minutes if you genuinely haven’t seen them and are interested.

[southernplaces7]

Likewise. Vague things that it's absurd to use again and again in any mention of all the enormous contributions that Feynman made to science and an interest in science among younger people. The polarization towards this one specific thing, which in this case also happens to be vague, speaks of a tacitly puritanical need to paint black anyone who somehow decades ago didn't fit just right with a specific notion of modern moral correctness. Laughable idiocy.

[olddustytrail]

I couldn't. All the accusations are vague to the point of uselessness. What is the convincing claim in your eyes?

[tshaddox]

I have no inside information and I haven’t done any particularly focused research into any of the claims. I’m only referring to extremely widely known and very easy to find claims that are much more specific than the single word “womanizing.” I’m not trying to convince anyone of their veracity or litigate details of claims on a point by point basis. I just think it’s disingenuous to reduce all such claims to a single or imply that they’re vague or difficult to find.

[olddustytrail]

It's not widely known to me and I found concrete claims difficult to find.

Why are you so shy about simply naming specifics on a subject you claim is widely known and easy to find information on?

[sn9]

They're described in detail in the book reviewed in the link this entire thread is responding to.