yeah, the full blow 19th c. phrenology was 95% bunk...but it's a sore spot. I first got black pilled in HS when a teacher (a) explained the scientific method, (b) said that phrenology was bunk. I asked "what experiment proved that?" A: "well, it's OBVIOUSLY bunk" https://twitter.com/BookDude/status/1034809594554589184 …
ok, valid request for clarification there are two different timestamps / two different stories in 9th grade I merely asserted "you have not proved it pro or con" in 2018 I assert "there have since been studies that prove some aspects of it"
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
this is the skull volume thing, where Gould said "racist ; data doesnt support"...and he was wrong?
End of conversation
-
-
-
I've not read up, but I suspect "prove some aspects of it" refers to things that aren't what anyone in modern times would consider part of "phrenology-the-thing-from-the-olden-days-that-was-psuedoscientific-and-debunked" aka head bump reading.
-
(this is an invitation for further clarification)
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.