My take on recent proclamations derived from supposed errors in Stephen Jay Gould’s analysis of Morton’s skull data:
Summary: a reexamination of Gould’s analysis of Morton’s cranial measurements finds that Morton’s data is free of the errors claimed by Gould, and the claim is made that this finding invalidates Gould’s thesis that scientific theorising is influenced by the prejudices of scientists. I argue otherwise: (a) Gould’s example being wrong, even if true does not imply that his thesis is wrong, (b) the argument developed by Gould’s critic caricatures his position and presents a naive view of scientific method.
Comments and feedback are always greatly appreciated,
—ravi
^^^^ CB: I cheer your effort.
Morton published his primary data. Gould says:" Morton published all his raw data, and it is shown here that his summary tables are based on a patchwork of apparently unconscious finagling. When his data are properly reinterpreted, all races have approximately equal capacities." So, Gould is not claiming that Morton made mis-measurements, is he ? Gould is claiming that Morton "finagled the summary tables" of the measurements. So, Lewis's redoing the actual measurements does not touch Gould's criticisms of Morton's finagling the summary tables. Lewis would have to show that Morton didn't finagle the summary tables to debunk Gould's criticism, no ?