What should be the outcome or even content of such debate? They existed; they were great and terrible; they are dead. Given the usual inability of mankind to deal with nuance, some will hate them and some will worship them.
In general, it can be expected that people who really shift the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness. It usually means trampling on someone else's theories and results.
> In general, it can be expected that people who really shift the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness.
We are not talking about disagreeableness that causes someone to pursue an unconventional path to discovery. We are talking about cheating, pure and simple. I hope you are not claiming that science rests on such behavior.
It’s fair to say Watson should have given more credit to the work of Franklin and Gosling, but to claim it’s “cheating, pure and simple” is clearly revisionist history.
Either his conduct was fair or it wasn't (misconduct). You are implying that it isn't without saying it outright, the comment you are replying is clearly calling it misconduct. I think in the spirit of debating you should be more direct and clearly state if you think he engaged in misconduct or not.
The outcome of such debate is to look at history with a more critical lens as opposed to just looking at it the way our ancestors did. It is not irrational to deem Watson a terrible human being while also acknowledging his contributions to science. This gives us the clear human perspective of how science has developed across time and the things we can do to ensure we are able to address some of the downsides of the human aspects of science (i.e. sexual harassment, misogyny, etc)
What should be the outcome or even content of such debate? They existed; they were great and terrible; they are dead. Given the usual inability of mankind to deal with nuance, some will hate them and some will worship them.
In general, it can be expected that people who really shift the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness. It usually means trampling on someone else's theories and results.