http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Dilemma-William-Poundstone/d...
In particular, von Neumann was an "amazing human" as long as you don't mind him advising the military to bomb Russia out of the map, preemptively. What a wonderfully humane move.
"If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"
(and this is not just some cranky scientist rambling -- he was very high up in the military circles, an advisor/policy maker).
Another common target of cringeworthy worship: Feynman. All fun stories (and I'm aware saying this is probably not going to go down well on HN) until you read about the abuse of women, paid abortions, broken marriages of his colleagues...
They're all human.
I don't know anything about the "paid abortion" thing.
It's tricky stuff... Feynman was (is?) a hero of mine, and I struggle to put this stuff in context.
Heros have feet of clay. The correct move is to adjust your concept of "hero" to include this.
The alternative, that you will only declare someone a "hero" if they are perfect in every way yields a definition of "hero" with 0 instances, which is a useless definition.
If Feynmann was abusive to his wife to some degree, well, plenty of people are abusive to their wifes without also creating physics breakthroughs. It's OK to honor his ability to do that without having to think of him as perfect.
I know a good number of people in a relationship, both male and female, who have engaged in some variation of second offense(throwing things or breaking things during their worst arguments with their spouse/partner. But it wasn't habitual and didn't extend to physical contact.
If that's "all" Feynman is accused of, then I don't think it's that big of a deal. I mean, he had a son and daughter who looked up to him, so I am a bit skeptical that he was a brutal wife beater (who tend not to draw the respect of their children).
The 'his calculus or his drum playing' part is kind of a giveaway.
The context is that there was no such thing as no-fault divorce in the United States until 1969, and as a result, it was not uncommon for people to invent phony stories about abuse and submit false testimony to the court.
For example (p. 277) "Bethe worried that Feynman was growing restless after four years at Cornell. There were entanglements with women: Feynman pursued them and then dropped them, or tried to, with increasingly public frustration -- so it seemed even to undergraduates, who knew him as the least professorial of professors."
If you get to p. 290, there's a quite astonishing section on Feynman's effort to work out the rules of flirting in a bar. You can still admire his science after reading the book. You'll be both charmed and troubled by his over-sized personality. But, hey, he was a complicated guy.
As a mathematician, it's probably worth pointing out the use of the implication. "If you are planning on bombing them tomorrow at 5pm then why wait?" is not equivalent to "Russia should be bombed now."
And indeed, of all the logical fallacies I see on the Internet this is one of the ones that tends to bother me personally the most. "A -> B" is not! equivalent to "B". If I meant B, I would have simply said B. I suspect the same is true of von Neumann.
It's hardly surprising either. During those few years when the US had the ability to devastate the USSR but not vice versa, it was a fairly common opinion. In addition to all the common reasons for advocating this, a Hungarian would also be influenced by the rather brutal domination of his homeland by the Soviets in that time.
"Von Neumann knew that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. He predicted that were Russia allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, a war against the U.S. would be inevitable. He therefore recommended that the U.S. launch a nuclear strike at Moscow, destroying its enemy and becoming a dominant world power, so as to avoid a more destructive nuclear war later on."
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects...
Personally, I think slave moralities have much to recommend them, as movements against elite domination.
Intellectual culture has its own hype, like the computer world. Some with loudspeakers try to deify a few "great thinkers", focussing on (certain narrow aspects of) their personalities they wish others to emulate. Brushing others aside who don't fit their model, despite talent. (Like people with the wrong gender/race.)
Let's take another well-known philosopher (Chomsky), who pointed out how humanity's masters try to turn "great" figures into villains, when they act with exemplary slave morality:
"Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."
You also have to remember that those figures have pretty much all they ever said scrutinized, so that tends to distort things -- I'm pretty sure everyone one time or another made some unethical remarks, specially as a WWII fugitive. Horrible things happened in Europe and after that the harshness of Stalinism was also clear. I think it wouldn't be hard to get caught in "ultra-Americanism" at the time.
you need to stop putting words in my mouth. never did i use the word hero, never did i use the word worship. never did i suggest those things, either.
Mauchly and Eckert did but Neumann came and stole the fame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mauchly#EDVAC
Eniac: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the World's First Computer, Scott McCartney