When the Idea creator's credibility is challenged, should the ideas credibility be questioned?

Most of my friends know that I am a big fan of Robert Kiyosaki and his books based on Rich Dad Poor Dad paradigm. I like his concepts of residual income, the quadrant approach to money making etc. In fact I had recommended his book Cashflow Quadrant to my friends 


So it was a shock when I read about John T. Read's write up about Kiyosaki. John is a very influential person with strong beliefs and ideas. He is very successful and his ideas on making money are very interesting (More on that in a later post)


He really goes to the town about the Rich Dad Poor Dad's "factual errors" and numerous "Extremely unlikely accounts of the events that supposedly happened" . It was an interesting read and John has spend quite some time to research his target. 


Whether we agree with John or not, the point which I was concerned about was the impact on the ideas and concepts Kiyosaki had put on the table. Since Kiyosaki's book's content has been questioned, does it mean that his ideas were also wrong? Was I just drinking Koolaid and not looking at the facts clearly? Should our impression of the ideas be influenced by the negative information on the author?


In my opinion, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.. Even after understanding all the accusations, the fact that there might not be a real "Rich Dad", I believe the central themes with Kiyosaki put forward are still valid. The fact that ideas may not be used by all of us talks more to the our limitations rather than the viability of the idea.


I still continue to believe in the concepts of Rich Dad Poor Dad.  I think ideas should be judged purely based on its merits and the idea creator shenanigans should not impact its credibility .


What do you think? 

Raghavan (Raj) Rajendran