Talk:Phrenology

Sherlock Holmes

I seem to remember that Sherlock Holmes used phrenology. This article makes no mention of that. --87.198.16.181 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Seven books by Dickens mention Phrenology. Poe wrote stories where phrenology was a key factor. Thomas Edison is closely associated with phrenology. It was a common concept mentioned by many books and people of the Victorian era. It would not be of help to list them in the article, in my opinion Prof Gall 11:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs)

Lloyd-George and C.P. Snow

I do not know if there is any basis whatsoever to the anecdote about David Lloyd-George and C.P. Snow (no source is given), but, in any case, they do not belong to the Victorian era, as the article implies. They are both 20th century figures, and Queen Victoria died in January 1901. Lloyd-George did not become a Cabinet Minister until 1906, and was Prime Minister from 1916-1922. Snow was not even born until 1905, and did not become prominent until the 1940s and 50's. Although it is possible that Lloyd-George was a believer in phrenology (although by his time it was already widely discredited), and it is possible that Snow met him in his old age, neither of them were Victorians. I am going to remove this anecdote. Even if true, it is misplaced and misdated. Treharne (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd George was a Victorian, having been born in that reign. He is also "credited" with a belief in phrenology in at least two independent sources, one in connection with Neville Chamberlain (mentioned by Amery) and another in connection with General Nivelle (mentioned by Terraine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Phrenology became a popular discipline ..." | WP:V

Nagualdesign has been inserting the unsourced text

Phrenology became a popular discipline among pro-slavery advocates, including Josiah C. Nott

Eventually sourcing it (with a flippant comment) to

• Dewbury, Adam, "The American School and Scientific Racism in Early American Anthropology", in Darnell, Regna; Gleach, Frederic W. (eds.), Histories of Anthropology Annual, vol. 3, p. 142

However the source does not appear to support our text. Nagualdesign – please explain. Alexbrn (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the source material? I would copy and paste sections but Google Books doesn't allow it. In summary, Nott believed that the internal skull volume was a key factor in intellectual and moral capacity. nagualdesign 00:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we seeing the same text? I'm seeing nothing on page 142 about this "becoming a popular discipline", or skulls and phrenology for that matter. Please provide a quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see what Alexbrn doesn't see. Furthermore, even if it's true that "Nott believed that the internal skull volume was a key factor in intellectual and moral capacity", that has little or nothing to do with phrenology, which cared little or nothing about cranial capacity. What nagualdesign seems to be doing is exactly why we have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. EEng 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies if I implied that page 142 would contain all the evidence you require in a nutshell. I had taken the <ref> directly from Josiah C. Nott. Here are a few quotes from the same book:

Three such theorists in the United States were Samuel George Morton, Louis Agassiz, and Josiah Nott: all European-trained physicians with strong professional interests in the natural sciences. These men formed a crucial part of the small group of scientists known as the "American School", a group of strong and influential proponents of the theory of polygenism. [...] Phrenologists developed many instruments for taking measurements, which were later adapted and adopted by anthropologists. [...] Though their work forms the foundation of modern anthropomentry, Morton was measuring skulls and publishing the results at least a decade before either Broca or Virchow became involved in anthropology. Morton employed a battery of cranial measurements in his analysis. [...] While Morton took a variety of measurements, he held the internal capacity (cranial capacity) as most important and used this measurement to determine his racial ranking. [...] Agassiz begins Principles with a brief explanation of how animal life is classified. Central to this explanation is his definition of what exactly constitutes genera and, more importantly, species. [...] In his own words, The Genus is founded upon some of the minor peculiarities of anatomical structure, such as the number, disposition, or proportions of the teeth, claws, fins, & c. and usually includes several kinds. The Species is founded upon less important distinctions, such as color, size, proportions, sculpture, & c. [...] In turn, this ideology was embraced by Josiah Nott and elaborated in his Indigenous Races of the Earth and Types of Mankind. [...] The American School's most passionate defender of polygenism, Josiah Clark Nott. [...] Like Morton, Nott points evidence from Egypt to argue the antiquity of the separate races. [...] Morton, Agassiz, and Nott presented a unified front in the defense of polygenism for over a decade before the American School went into sharp decline.

And from the lead section of this article:

Phrenology is a pseudomedicine primarily focused on measurements of the human skull, based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules.

If that doesn't satisfy then I give up, and I suggest you delete large parts of the Josiah C. Nott article if you're so inclined. nagualdesign 02:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, so the source simply does not support the text you inserted. I'm not sure how problematic the Nott article is, but it makes no mention of his supposed phrenological interests (which is why I doubted this content all along). In general, it is better to build articles from sources rather than try and retro-fit sources to match bogus text. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote: it seems in fact that phrenology was popular both with pro-slavery types and abolitionists: both groups used it to argue their case.[1] Something on this may be worth mentioning. Alexbrn (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• The above quote doesn't seem to tie Nott to phrenology at all. Phrenology was an enormous social (not just scientific) movement throughout the first half of the 19th century and was applied to all kinds of political and social problems -- why this attempt to give Nott a central role? I know a great deal about phrenology, because it's an important adjunct to a longstanding research project of mine, and I've never heard of him. EEng 02:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Introduction label

Is it really apt to label phrenology as a "pseudoscience"? Obviously it's discredited but I found that Wikipedia generally uses the word pseudoscience to label beliefs that are more modern or still followed in the modern world, and/or whose followers were contemporaneously countered with decisively refuting evidence but ignored it regardless. Phrenology is an old theory that existed before advanced neuroscience, and while there were many opponents to it equally many scientists still confided in it and it influenced much of contemporary brain physiology and psychology until it was more conclusively disproven. Although its refutation came relatively quickly, I still think that it falls more appropriately under the category of obsolete scientific theories, akin to the miasma theory of disease or spontaneous generation of lifeforms, by virtue of how widely believed it was in the first half of the 19th century. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 11:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange sentence in introduction

The sentence, “While it contributed to the advancement in understanding the brain and its functions, remaining skeptical is something that was learnt overtime.”, seems either badly formed or there is a type-o or word missing, but as I 1. do not have experience editing Wikipedia and 2. am not sure which of the above is happening, i.e how exactly to fix the sentence or if it just needs to be removed, I thought it better to simply note this for someone else to tackle. 2601:603:4D81:6720:694D:36D8:DB69:2A44 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I decided to edit it slightly, having maybe understood what it was attempting to say, but I still believe it and the sentence following may be better suited for deletion entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4D81:6720:2498:9126:1B88:3E63 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Unclear passage

In the section Gender stereotyping this passage appears:

"Gender stereotyping was also common with phrenology. Women whose heads were generally larger in the back with lower foreheads were thought to have underdeveloped organs necessary for success in the arts and sciences while having larger mental organs relating to the care of children and religion. While phrenologists did not contest the existence of talented women, this minority did not provide justification for citizenship or participation in politics."

But nobody knows what the phrase this minority refers to.

I hope that someone knowledgeable about this subject will fix this. 2601:204:F181:9410:5874:FD97:CEEB:3FFB (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)