[lbo-talk] Zero Sum » The mishmashing of Gould: scientific method and bias

[// ravi]

On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:34 PM, c b wrote:
>> FWIW:
>> 
>> My take on recent proclamations derived from supposed errors in
>> Stephen Jay Gould’s analysis of Morton’s skull data:
>> 
>> http://0sum.org/archives/122
>> 
>> 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 ?
> 

Yes, exactly.

	—ravi