In the 1840s the American scientist Samuel George Morton had over a thousand skulls from all over the world. He divided them by race. He said that those of the Mongolian race had only 95% as much space for the brain as the Caucasian ones did. But to get that low figure he left out his largest Chinese skull and all his Eskimo skulls – and gave no reason for it.
In the 1860s British physician Dr John Langdon Down discovered Down syndrome as a particular disorder. Only it was not called Down syndrome till a hundred years later. Before then it was called mongolism and its sufferers were mongoloids. Because even when born to Caucasian parents their eyes and other features made them look as if they were part Mongolian by race. To Dr Down that was no accident: “there can be no doubt that these ethnic features are the result of degeneration.”
In the 1870s French scientist Paul Broca, who measured skulls much more carefully than Morton, found that some Mongolians had bigger skulls than white people did, like Eskimos, Tartars, Malays and Lapps. But he said it was not overall size that mattered but how big the front part of the skull was – the seat of intelligence. And there Caucasians were still on top.
In the 1890s French scientist Alfred Binet, following Broca’s advice, set out to measure the intelligence of French schoolchildren by measuring the front of their heads. But no matter how carefully he made his measurements, they did not match up with what their teachers reported of their intelligence. So he tried a completely different approach: he invented the IQ test.
In the 1960s America eased limits on Asian immigration, but favoured those with better educations, like doctors, nurses, engineers and university students. A side effect of that brain drain has been the model minority stereotype, of Asians having more natural intelligence than even white people.
In the 1970s the scientific racist Pioneer Fund started supporting studies to prove that Asians are naturally more intelligent than whites. It uses those studies to defend itself against the charge of being white supremacist.
In the 2000s one of its scientists, Richard Lynn, said that the Chinese and Japanese have an IQ of about 106. But, as it turns out, his Japanese IQ was based on testing well-to-do Japanese. Meanwhile his Chinese IQ was based on testing Chinese Americans in San Francisco in the 1970s with an out-of-date test from the 1950s – one on which whites of the time would have done even better due to the Flynn Effect (where average IQs go up by about 0.3 points a year).
Even the Pioneer Fund admits that there has been no broad IQ testing of Asia. So we are back to where Morton was over 150 years ago, drawing conclusions about Asian intelligence based on bad sampling and current stereotypes.
See also:
Yes! First to comment!
Who cares how large one’s brain is? A bigger brain doesn’t necessarily mean one has more intelligence. Just look at some twelve-year-olds who are already in college. Their brains haven’t fully developed yet. I don’t think brain size is an accurate determination of intelligence.
LikeLike
Anyone up for a game of chess?
LikeLike
Interesting historical chronology.
I see someone has been reading Danielle’s recent entries.
BTW: when are you going to publish the results of the earth’s hottest black men?
I am in dire need of serious eye candy..;-)
LikeLike
What worries me the most is the number of people who fall for junk science. Actually even more worrying is that, at the same time, those people mock serious science which openly admits that it cannot always give ultimate answers and that there are in fact plenty of unknowns in this world.
Back to the topic, according to the “research” of those “scientists”, Danny DeVito must be retarded compared to Shaquille O’Neal who then must be a genius.
Or how would these guys fit into those theories?
http://bit.ly/dPfI3c
LikeLike
Science can never establish Truth.
LikeLike
Never?
Are you suggesting that the statement “planet earth is spherical and revolves around the sun” could be untrue?
LikeLike
Yes, the earth is not perfectly spherical–the earth has a little bulge at the equator. The two poles are also somewhat flat. Think about earth’s shape like a ball of clay that someone has applied force on opposite ends with both hands.
Also, the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun–both the earth AND the sun revolve around something called the center of mass which is extremely close to the center of the sun which is why some people mistake that the earth revolves around the sun. BOTH the earth and the sun have gravitational attractions towards each other.
LikeLike
I was serious about that online chess, by the way.
LikeLike
@ calculator
OK, do you suggest that the details you stated could be untrue?
LikeLike
Let’s put it this way, can we safely assume that the statement “earth is flat like a pizza, the centre of the universe and all other matter revolves around it” is definitely untrue?
LikeLike
Regardless if the point of mass is in the sun the earth revolves around the sun. Going around the sun is a fact, and what causes it doesn’t change the fact. Perhaps calculator lives in an alternate universe.
LikeLike
“OK, do you suggest that the details you stated could be untrue?”
Checkmate.
LikeLike
“Science can never establish Truth.”
It can never establish general Truth according to Popper’s theory of science. That’s because you can’t observe every possible example. Scientific knowledge consists not of “proven” Laws but of hypotheses which have not yet been disproven.
LikeLike
Great research, Abagond.
To me, what it does show is how science has not been objective, and worked to confirm the popular belief systems and agendas of the day.
The lab coat and Bunsen burner boys of 2011 are no more immune to those failings than were their predecessors.
Science, like art, music, and literature, does not so much reflect society as it reflect the vision of society of those who are paying for the interpretation.
LikeLike
@ King
The miscarriages of science, propelled by whatever obscure motivation are not the norm. However, that is entirely human failure. There are quite a few examples where scientific knowledge was perverted for ideology, against all plausibility, and later corrected back to the scientific state of knowledge. One of those examples is the “earth as centre of the universe” dogma.
I think that’s exactly one of the points where science is fundamentally misunderstood. Science is not a means to establish “the truth”. No serious scientist would make that claim. Perhaps pseudo-scientists would. Demagogues quite certainly.
Science attempts to rationally explain structures and events that occur in nature through observation, experiment and collecting evidence. The keyword is repeatability. If an experiment or an observation can be made independently by anybody at any time with identical results, one (human or any life form capable of reasoning) can extrapolate that it is merely how nature works for this particular event. Truth or no truth, as a human construct, is irrelevant to natural science. Truth is a philosophical entity.
LikeLike
Femi, I think a few things happen:
1) The science is pure.
2) The science is pure, but the extrapolations become politicized and twisted to fit certain popular goals.
3) The science is unconsciously compromised by the researcher’s own a priori beliefs or by flaws in the funding, structural, and/or assessment system.
3) The science is fraudulent, and is used from the start as an “unbiased” authority to affirm the underpinnings a political agenda.
The standard bias is that most science is of the Number 1 variety, but that is probably not true. I believe that “pure science” is as rare as any human “purity.”
However, a great deal of the dominant culture of science today is theoretical science — it’s non-repeatable and minimally testable. Yet, these scientific “truths” are often promoted as if they are at the same level of veracity as the boiling point of water at sea level.
LikeLike
@ King
I agree that what you mention is a sad reality for the fields that do have that certain “x-factor” in the public. However, it should never discourage anybody, neither scientists themselves nor the public, to keep observing, searching, experimenting, listening, recording, analysing, thinking, questioning, skepticising, reviewing….
LikeLike
The quality of science practised by those in the post:
Morton was honest but made mistakes – mistakes which he did not question because they supported current racist beliefs.
Broca and Lynn were practising pseudoscience: instead working from facts towards conclusions, they started with conclusions and found facts that supported them. Like they were defence lawyers or something. Both came across plenty of contrary facts but overlooked them or found reasons not to believe them.
Binet, at least as far as I know, was both honest and careful.
Dr Down I threw in to help show that East Asians were once regarded by whites as a markedly lower race (never as low as blacks, but way lower than whites) and to show how racism affected how facts were seen.
LikeLike
Interesting post.
Pseudo-science satisfies those who want to be proven right while true science is feared and ignored.
LikeLike
Apart from the pseudos, it is often in the phase of interpretation of the observation where science ends, first and foremost when the interpretations are done outside a scientific context.
Galileo Galilei – house arrest until his death.
Giordano Bruno – burnt at the stake.
Other serious scientists between now and the 17th century – ostracism.
Once again – those who jump to conclusions are likely to land in ignorance.
LikeLike
“Science is not a means to establish “the truth”. No serious scientist would make that claim.”
All right then, if you knew that why did you previously challenge that notion.
I’m a science major; don’t mock me. I’ve taken vigorous classes in biology, calculus, physics, and chemistry. I’ve outlasted engineering majors in high-level math classes. I know what I’m talking about.
The Limitations of Science:
1) Science must deal with observable, measurable phenomena.
2) Science can only describe, not explain.
3) No experiment can be completely controlled.
4) Observationsn may be faulty.
5) Humans’ beliefs affect their judgment.
6) Science must deal with repeatable results.
7) Science cannot deal with values or morals.
8) Science cannot prove a universal statement.
9) Science cannot establish Truth.
LikeLike
I don’t think no. 1 or 2 are limitations. There are some things that always work, the simple machines and have been doing so since primates have used them. On this planet they will always work.
There are certain areas of study where one can apply the scientific method to get partial answers, but the data can not be attained with the degree of certainty as with a simple machine. I do believe those areas should not be called science.
LikeLike
I don’t mock anybody’s scientific credentials. I just ask questions when people make statements in absolute, philosophical terms about science. One of those terms is “never”. Others are “truth” or “belief”. Certain terms make no sense as a natural entity that could ever be described scientifically. Thus using those terms to define science itself is absurd. It’s like mixing science with faith or trying to describe human constructs like “infinity” with physics.
Of course, there is always an element of imprecision and uncertainty in scientific methodology, even after its repeatability has been shown over and over again. But the point is, when it is known which those uncertainties are, hence not ignored, and that they don’t lead to inconsistencies in the result, the methodology is as equally valid as it would be without uncertainties.
@ Calculator
Your points 5, 7, 8 and 9 have nothing to do with natural science. It’s philosophy, politics, faith, social sciences etc.
As for point 2. Well, we can keep juggling with words. Nature explains itself. It doesn’t mean that we as humans always understand it. However there are explanations in nature that we are able to rationally follow.
LikeLike
@Femi:
Actually I would say, in some instances, 5 can be applied to the so called “hard sciences”, after all, in the end, it’s humans who interpret the results. Further, I believe that 7 counts too, after all there are some observable and controlled experiments that, while informative, can be seen as morally reprehensible (exposing a test group of people to small amounts of nuclear radiation over time and observing the results, for instance).
I agree with you in terms of 6, 8, and 9, however.
*Sorry, but couldn’t let you get away with that social science jab. XP*
LikeLike
It would be accurate if we rephrase point 5 to “Science must not be influenced by belief.”
Like in any other profession, there are scientists who are thorough and rigourous in their approach, others a bit less so and then those who get carried away by their beliefs.
Does that mean no scientist can be expected to rigourously follow scientific methodology? As a “natural law”, along the lines of “That’s just how it is, people. Get over it”?
No! It means that there is plenty of space for improvement. Especially if there is the slightest doubt that the one who delivered the interpretations is unbiased. That’s one of the reasons why there are peer reviews which involve elimination of bias. If there is evidence that scientists were in fact biased by their beliefs, they have to work on the belief part. It makes no sense to declare science responsible for the misjudgements of people.
Throughout history, there have been ground-breaking, brilliant, but also mediocre and really bad scientists. However human failure does not invalidate science itself. It’s about work in progress or going back to the drawing board for those humans. Nature keeps running its course regardless.
Apart from that, as for the interpretation of raw scientific findings, well, unfortunately this is often done by non-experts in the particular field who jump to conclusions that best fit their agenda.
As for the moral aspects, what does moral have to do with the fact that radioactivity exists in nature? When the Curies first discovered it, its dangers were not known. Only after a series of more or less unexplained deaths of people who exposed themselves to radioactive substances in the thirties, one could extrapolate that the radiation itself might be lethal. Marie Curie herself kept warning the public about exposure as the effects weren’t fully understood.
If you’re hinting at the human experiments in concentration camps, those were crimes. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with science. Junk science perhaps. Those experiments were carried out against the will of the inmates and fully aware of detrimental consequences.
If I’m not mistaken it was Galilei who once said
“If God didn’t want us to think rationally, why has he given us a brain capable of doing so?”
If we imagine science as water – belief, faith and politics are oil.
LikeLike
“That’s one of the reasons why there are peer reviews which involve elimination of bias.”
Well… not so much elimination of bias. More like a balancing of a single bias against the biases of a larger group. The hope is that conflicting biases will tend to balance each other out.
“Apart from that, as for the interpretation of raw scientific findings, well, unfortunately this is often done by non-experts in the particular field who jump to conclusions that best fit their agenda.
Read as Steve Sailer, non-expert extraordinaire.
If we imagine science as water – belief, faith and politics are oil.
Only in theory. In reality, science is as steeped in bias, greed, ambition, rivalry, and ulterior motives as any other human endeavor. The weakness of science is that it can only be conducted by human beings, and human beings are flawed. Therefore, the most sensitive and important instrument used in any experiment is always faulty.
That doesn’t mean that truths are not uncovered by science, it just means that a lot of untruth can also slip through, and the truth that is revealed can still be besmirched with bias and sometimes, even outright dishonesty – just like philosophy or religion. The scientific method can be easily set aside when more immediate human needs come into play.
LikeLike
I know what you’re getting at, King, but the motives you’re mentioning are not something that couldn’t be overcome or at least improved. Of course we can always stick our heads in the sand and dig ourselves into fatalism but this world is what we make out of it.
However, the point is that science is not limited to humans only but can be conducted by any species capable of observation and reasoning. The only species we know to date capable of doing so are humans.
It’s not science’s fault that humans are flawed.
LikeLike
@ Femi
No, it’s not my purpose to somehow blame science, or to unduly denigrate its practice. Science is an irreplaceable tool in understanding the texture of our shared reality.
The problem, as I see it, is that science has built for itself a false pedestal of objectivity. It is believed, by many, to be more true than other forms of knowledge acquisition because it cannot be deflected by a priori assumptions or belief systems. Unfortunately, that has proven not to be true.
How many modern Galileos have been excommunicated from academic grants, scientific respectability, and prestigious research assignments by the Church of Current Scientific Doctrine?
LikeLike
@ King
All the more reason to get science back to the quality level of Galilei, Kepler, Democritus, Newton, Einstein, Curie, Planck, Lagrange etc… (in terms of rigour in methodology within available means of their times).
Dimensions like religion, belief or church have no place in natural science. Science must exclusively remain in the realm of knowing, not knowing or not yet knowing facts about nature. “Not knowing” and “ignoring” are very different things, by the way. Science has been hijacked often enough by quacks and it probably will in the future.
However, it is totally irrelevant for nature what humans believe how nature works. Everybody is of course free to believe that the stars are somehow glued to a giant balloon in the sky whose centre is the earth or that radioactivity was brought upon earth by the devil. Nature couldn’t care less if it was declared as “knowledge”.
“There is nothing scarier than a scientifically illiterate adult with a finger on the button.” Neil DeGrasse Tyson
LikeLike
Most east asians are smarter than I am.
I am probably smarter than slightly half of whites.
Most blacks are less intelligent than I am, though there are many blacks of sharper mind than me.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with the map because what? The map said that the middle east is barbarian and half civilized ??? Come on man in what way you said that even the first civilization come from middle east. And you said that europe is civilized maybe it mean the civilized mean in this context is the christianized barbar red hair ???? Even china has more civilized than the barbar of northern europe !!! Remember your ancestor is fucking barbarian germanic tribe !!!!
LikeLike