Biased Scientific Explorations- Phrenology

I had studied Phrenology is multiple courses at MSU, but never read an excerpt that dove into the extremely biased specifics of certain studies. It was initially apparent that the Fowler family played a critical role in the development and popularization of a correlation between the size and shape of a person's head, and their personality and intellect. The sections first analyzed regarding mental health, morality, and character try to explain that the "Brain is the Organ of the Mind." Further noting that the brain is composed of thirty-seven different organs that facilitate mental strengths and weaknesses. These organs are then grouped together in different positions in the human head, and by analyzing the overall shape of the skull, you can determine which "organs" are strong and which are weak. This basis is then expanded upon in a severely biased way.

Human and animal skulls are then compared in shape and size, correlating animalistic behavior to certain traits humans posses. This erroneous science is then further exemplified in the behaviors and intellect of different races, stating, "the Caucasian race is superior in reasoning power and moral elevation to all other races." The contrast of forehead size between Caucasians, Indians, and African Americans supposedly proves phrenological principles and highlights signs of superior intellect and character. These studies are a great example of nineteenth century propaganda, trying to popularize a science that proves the Europeans are the superior or aryan race. Further connections between head and body posture, along with the "Quality of the Brain" is analyzed in great detail.

This text is a great example of the fact the humanity has been, and always will be, extremely judgmental. The reality that a decade of scientific research was dedicated to a completely inaccurate subject says something about what medical doctors were trying to prove. I enjoyed reading this text because it emphasized a type of medical practice different from all of the other "madmen" we have learned about. The extent of this medical pseudoscience raises a question about how our societies' current scientific explorations are going to be thought of in another one-hundred and fifty years from now.