The Lost Art of Crainiology: Flawed Research and Biased Science

This topic submitted by Adam Naylor and Mike Ernst (ernstmg@muohio.edu) at 12:31 am on 3/1/01. Additions were last made on Wednesday, April 4, 2001. Section: Myers.

Adam Graham Naylor
Michael Gregory Ernst
Natural Systems II
2/21/01

Project Proposal

I. Introduction

Our project is on “Measuring Heads,” which comes from the “Paul Brocha and the Heyday of Craniology” article, concerning scientific inquiry with an agenda. The author, who we couldn’t find listed in the reader, describes Craniology, a false science that attempted to reinforce a racially defined hierarchy through series of scientific experiments. These experiments “proved” the superiority of the dominant class, in this case, aristocratic white European males. Produced following the publication of Darwin’s Origins of a Species, which describes in detail the theory of evolution, these studies attempted to further Darwin’s conclusion that mankind evolved from primates. They attempted to prove that “lower” classes, dictated by race, gender, or social status, were not as fully evolved as members of the dominant class. Sometimes the numbers produced by the experiments were sound, but too often the conclusions were assumed before any measurements were taken.
Our research involves the creation of a survey and the measuring of heads of those taking the survey. We will then attempt to find relationships between the responses to our survey and the volume of the respondents’ heads. The point of this exercise is not necessarily to find a correlation. In fact, we expect that just the opposite will be found, that there will be no correlation whatsoever.

2. Relevance of Research Question

This topic is extremely relevant in today’s world, where ethics often take a backseat to corporate profits and the protection of the status quo. We need to examine the following questions: is the scientific research occurring now as unbiased and impartial as we would assume and hope? Or has the proliferation of corporate dollars tainted supposedly “pure” research, adding agendas and ulterior motives.
A larger issue of which we can only begin to scratch the surface, is the notion that all scientific “knowledge” is infallible and strictly based on logic. This places science upon a pedestal, above criticism. This certainly isn’t the case, seeing that science has evolved, with certain “truths” continuously being disregarded in favor of new information.

3. Materials and Methods

Our research will be presented as if this were scientifically sound. We will ask the participants to fill out a survey, consisting of the following questions:

What is your G.P.A.?
If you have taken an I.Q. test, what score did you have?
What is your age?
What is your gender?
What is your shoe size?
What is your favorite color?
How tall are you?
How much do you weigh?
What is your favorite food?
Do you drink coffee?
Do you smoke cigarettes?
Who is your favorite Beatle?
What is your middle initial?
What is your political affiliation?
What is your hair color?
What is your natural hair color?
Do you wear corrective eye wear?
Do you know what kind of tattoo Faculty member Chris Meyers has? If so, what is it?
Do you have a tattoo?
Do you have any piercings?
What is your favorite kind of candy bar?
What is your sign from the zodiac?
Did you vote in the previous election? If yes, for whom?
Time taken to fill out survey:

Most of these questions will be simply disregarded, but are important because they assure that the survey participant will be unaware of the intent of our survey. We will mark the time each person takes to fill out the survey. With this plethora of information, we will then purposely “fudge” the data to show a positive correlation between two completely unrelated and random facts. If a majority of those with high GPA’s enjoy Ringo Starr’s brilliant drumming stylings, then we will say that this is proof positive that the illustrious Beatle’s drummer’s fans have a higher intellect than those of say, oh, George Harrison.
We’ll survey approximately 50 students for the bulk of our data, but we’ll also have a separate, pseudo-control group which consists of a much smaller number group of five students. We’ll make the same false correlations in this small group, looking for unrelated trends. The purpose of this is to illustrate one of the flaws of bad science: extrapolating data from a very limited research pool. No doubt there will be some bizarre correlation within such a small group, which we can then expound upon and say applies to humanity as a whole. Such assumptions are often the problems of flawed science.
Additionally, there will be a second part of our survey which will attempt to demonstrate the fact that everyone is inherently biased. This will consist of a short story after which the reader will be asked to explain how such an event is possible. The story is this: “A doctor is summoned to the operating room. The nurse informs the doctor that the patient is a twelve year old boy who was in a car wreck with his father. The doctor looks at the boy, and says, ‘I can’t operate on this boy, he’s my son!’” The simplest explanation is simply that the doctor is the boy’s mother. However, most people will not give this explanation because it will not cross their mind that the doctor could be a woman.
To further show not only that statistical bias exists, we will also that people’s inherent biases can influence outcome. To gather data, we will have people perform the Implicit Attitudes test, found online at http://buster.cs.yale.edu/implicit/measure1.html. This test measures bias through word association, by flashing certain positive and negative words with pictures of certain types of people. The test can be taken to measure bias in race, gender, age and political preference. We will assign people a category, and compare the results, taking into account
We will also be presenting a history of our topic, including the various individuals concerned with the size of the human head and the ideologies which they have supported with their experimentation. We will be researching phrenology, craniology, and other biased aspects of anthropology in the past and present. We will also be researching biased science in the twentieth century. We hope to use this research, in conjunction with the survey results to show that science still has the potential for bias, and that the danger of prejudiced science still exists.

Bibliography

Bartlett, Joseph. Physiognomy: A Poem. Portsmouth, NH: Printed by W. Treadwell, 1810.

Bates, Elizabeth and Dick, Frederic. Beyond Phrenology: Brain and Language in the Next Millennium. San Diego. University of California Press. 1999.

Kaufman, M. H. and N. Basden. Items Relating to Dr. Johann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776-1832) In the Henderson Trust Collection, Formerly the Museum Collection of the Phrenological Society of Edinburgh: With an Abbreviated Iconography. London. Elsavior Science Ltd. 1996

Rice, N.L. Phrenology Examined, and Shown to be Inconsistent with the Principles of Phisiology, Mental and Moral Science, and the Doctrines of Christianity. Also An Examination of the Claims of Mesmerism. New York, R. Carter & Brothers; Cincinnati, J. D. Thorpe, 1849

Schiller, Francis. Paul Broca, Founder of French Anthropology, Explorer of the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Sizer, Nelson. Heads and Faces and How to Study Them; A Manual of Phrenolgy and Physiognomy For the People. New York, Fowler and Wells Co., 1885.

For Further Info on this Topic, Check out this WWW Site: http://buster.cs.yale.edu/implicit/measure1.html . Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu