Phrenology is a pseudoscience While some people view phrenology with interest, most early scientists viewed it with suspicion. Because it was so contrary to accepted belief, phrenology has repeatedly been condemned as silly. However, several serious problems had already been identified in the technique that allowed only for crude analysis. A number of eminent scientists, beginning with Gall himself, have pointed out weaknesses in his methodology. For example, he performed no control analyses where subjects were given random answers to all questions or tests, allowing the comparison of specific faculties at different times. Later psychologists noted that because Gall relied upon subjective assessment, there would be a wide variation between individuals who claimed expertise. In other words, not only would you have difficulty determining someone’s abilities through testing alone, but anyone could claim to know more about someone else just by watching them. Four scientific disc...
Comments
Post a Comment