Wow, dude, you seem to really hate anybody who tries stuff or doesn't have a flawless record. Who hurt you?

Wrong.

Welcome to philosophy?

Not all philosophers are as illogical as he was.

I haven't read this but I think you're falling into a logical trap here by inferring that Plato's statements that selfishness doom you to unhappiness also mean that selflessness will bring you happiness. Those two ideas are not the same.

You think that because you don't know what you're talking about.

If by broke his own gibberish you mean Einstein continued to observe and correct and contribute and collaborate and revise and all the other things good scientists do, then yes. But by all means, let's pretend that equations and theories of huge import should remain exactly as they were when first published. Even in that universe, how exactly does Einstein get too much credit for positing the theory that is still foundational to our standard model today?

He didn't correct it, he simply removed the constant--this was one example. Most of his theories were erroneous.

So if a man builds a hundred crappy bridges that crumble and then builds one bridge that stands the test of time and improves all bridges built by everyone moving forward, you think students should have to study all the crappy bridges too?

No, I don't think that, that wasn't the point I was making, and the "bridge" which supposedly stood the test of time was in fact flawed by design.

I don't know anything about Freud. You're still wrong.

It seems you don't actually know much about anything.

You don't have to agree with the work any of these people did. It doesn't even have to hold up very long. These people are credited as giants in their fields because their work pushed us forward. That credit is due and has nothing at all to do with their personalities, failures, writing styles or anything else. They don't even have to be geniuses.

They're credited as geniuses; we're told they're amazing scientists. They were illogical, their work was horse-shit and we'd have discovered what we discovered without them. I reserve the right to have these views.

You don't know what you are talking about, you've stated you don't know what you are talking about, so all you are really arguing is ad hominem and not the points I have made.