While I don't generally disagree, I think it is worthwhile to subcatagorize allegations of, err, "odour".

For instance, I tend to think of the debate over Federal Service in ST as an allegation of "bad art" --the author has strenuously made the argument that a point is clear in the work that others have not been able to discern. I take him seriously that he meant it to be clear, and therefore if it is not, then it was a failure of art on that point.

Other issues, like Libertarianism and spirituality, I tend to think of issues of context over a long career --what contexts was he in at a specific moment in time regarding a specific scenario, and does it really cause tension with another observation later in a different context about a different scenario, or does the change in context, properly accounted for, just disappear that tension?

A different issue would be actual development/change over time --a point where you can legitimately say "Yep, Early RAH and Late RAH actually have tension on that point, because Late RAH has moved on from the earlier position." Off the top of my head, I can't think of one of these I'm personally willing to sign-up for, but the allegation is often made about economics or political science, often with a sly grin re the change in wives.

And then a last set would be more along the lines of "wow, I understand it, but I really don't like it", where presumably "I" would be less ideosyncratic, but in fact representative of a substantial pov shared by many and presumably based in an allegation of being false to the reasonably demonstrated reality of the actual human condition. The handling of sex issues in general, and parenting, seem to fall in this catagory of allegations. And, btw, invites a donnybrook that RAH would have enjoyed --and in my view, in at least some cases was actually trying to start-- over whether there is an independent and unchanging "reasonably demonstrated reality of the actual human condition" on many, or any, issues.

Re sex and marriage, for instance, in the letter I've referred to a few times here to his editor re SIASL, Heinlein states that he doesn't doubt that even absent legal/societal strictures, the majority of the human race would voluntarily pair up in the ancient "two by two" manner of Noah's charges going up the plank to the Ark (my imagery, not his --I think).

There are other issues of that last sort that ought, in my view, not to qualify, or get their own catagory of "faux", such as "Heinlein is a fascist", because while they attempt to wedge themselves into that catagory, most open-minded people looking at the facts broadly (which would have been harder to do in 1959, to be fair), cannot be "reasonably demonstrated".

And a further "lastly", in judging that last catagory one has to take into account the nature of the genre, and its purpose for existing --challenging status quo. Arguably in some cases this is the basis of a plea of "Guilty with an explanation, your Honor" rather than "Not Guilty", but it still has to be considered.

I use the term "solipsism" to describe it because I'm not well-read enough on the subject (or in general) to describe it otherwise. It is, however, a subject matter that fascinates me.

Yes, I think you're right; mysticism belongs in the problematica. Just where it might fit though, might be a problem in its own right

By "IONS" did you mean that Edgar Mitchell institute? Sounds like you're talking about that. Why RAH and Ginny were interested enough to join seems fairly clear to me: their mission statement has them trying to pick up the gauntlet of rigorously investigating *stuff* after Rhine's researches had kind of petered out. Twain's two essays and Upton Sinclair's 1930 book both begged for someone to take the mass of casual data and figure out what was actually going on.

I don't think Bridey Murphy quite "counts," as Heinlein explained over and over that he didn't "Believe" Bridey Murphy -- it just made a good hook to hang a story on. Still, there are other things that could take up the Bridey Murphy slack.

It's my impression that those who acknowledge mysticism in Heinlein at all are generally accepting of the idea, but the problems are on the other side of a Great Divide -- the segment who insist that Heinlein Was, After All, Just An Engineer Who Told Good Stories, which is so obviously numbnutted that it's hard to take the objections seriously.

Perhaps this means that the Heinlein Is a Hard Science Fiction Writer meme needs to go into the problematica as well.

Another possibly problematic area:

After only a few generations, the Howards are decidedly biologically different from non-Howards, for the better. What were Heinlein's thoughts on Eugenics?

Another possibly problematic area:

After only a few generations, the Howards are decidedly biologically different from non-Howards, for the better. What were Heinlein's thoughts on Eugenics?