I’m not a huge fan of hoaxes in general, but surely there is a difference between one that made it into an academic journal and one that didn’t? That said, the Quillette one was clearly a mistake and should not have happened. When I read it, I thought it seemed odd.
-
-
I’d also point out that Quillette’s editors have taken enormous glee over the years in pointing out factual errors by Vox and Slate, iirc.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @JeffreyASachs @rasmansa
Sure. They will get grilled. That’s how the game works. They should. I will also point out, though, that the depth of BS attacks on Quillette is astonishing. The phrenology claim is an absolute mendacity. Anybody who cares for truth should correct it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I find it especially funny when it comes from scientists or historians of science.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I hope that Sachs and others who care about truth rebut the phrenology claim, since it is transparent nonsense. Fair criticism is fair. But that is a complete fabrication.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I honestly don’t know the context. I read your book review when it came out, but haven’t followed the discussion about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That’s fair. People claimed we were promoting phrenology because we noted that anthropologists can classify skulls by race (in US) with reasonable success. Now it’s a criticism that is repeatedly used. The Jacobin piece you shared used it.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There is a modern study. Null results.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945218301436 …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
I think some of the bio criminology researches have written modern evaluations of some of the old claims of Lombroso et al. Maybe see work of @cjprofman and colleagues.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.