This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I seem to remember that Sherlock Holmes used phrenology. This article makes no mention of that. -- 87.198.16.181 ( talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Seven books by Dickens mention Phrenology. Poe wrote stories where phrenology was a key factor. Thomas Edison is closely associated with phrenology. It was a common concept mentioned by many books and people of the Victorian era. It would not be of help to list them in the article, in my opinion Prof Gall 11:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall ( talk • contribs)

I do not know if there is any basis whatsoever to the anecdote about David Lloyd-George and C.P. Snow (no source is given), but, in any case, they do not belong to the Victorian era, as the article implies. They are both 20th century figures, and Queen Victoria died in January 1901. Lloyd-George did not become a Cabinet Minister until 1906, and was Prime Minister from 1916-1922. Snow was not even born until 1905, and did not become prominent until the 1940s and 50's. Although it is possible that Lloyd-George was a believer in phrenology (although by his time it was already widely discredited), and it is possible that Snow met him in his old age, neither of them were Victorians. I am going to remove this anecdote. Even if true, it is misplaced and misdated. Treharne ( talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Lloyd George was a Victorian, having been born in that reign. He is also "credited" with a belief in phrenology in at least two independent sources, one in connection with Neville Chamberlain (mentioned by Amery) and another in connection with General Nivelle (mentioned by Terraine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 ( talk) 14:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Nagualdesign has been inserting the unsourced text

Phrenology became a popular discipline among pro-slavery advocates, including Josiah C. Nott

Eventually sourcing it (with a flippant comment) to

• Dewbury, Adam, "The American School and Scientific Racism in Early American Anthropology", in Darnell, Regna; Gleach, Frederic W. (eds.), Histories of Anthropology Annual, vol. 3, p. 142

However the source does not appear to support our text. Nagualdesign – please explain. Alexbrn ( talk) 00:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Did you even bother to read the source material? I would copy and paste sections but Google Books doesn't allow it. In summary, Nott believed that the internal skull volume was a key factor in intellectual and moral capacity. nagual design 00:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Are we seeing the same text? I'm seeing nothing on page 142 about this "becoming a popular discipline", or skulls and phrenology for that matter. Please provide a quotation. Alexbrn ( talk) 00:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I also don't see what Alexbrn doesn't see. Furthermore, even if it's true that "Nott believed that the internal skull volume was a key factor in intellectual and moral capacity", that has little or nothing to do with phrenology, which cared little or nothing about cranial capacity. What nagualdesign seems to be doing is exactly why we have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. E Eng 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

My apologies if I implied that page 142 would contain all the evidence you require in a nutshell. I had taken the <ref> directly from Josiah C. Nott. Here are a few quotes from the same book:

Three such theorists in the United States were Samuel George Morton, Louis Agassiz, and Josiah Nott: all European-trained physicians with strong professional interests in the natural sciences. These men formed a crucial part of the small group of scientists known as the "American School", a group of strong and influential proponents of the theory of polygenism. [...] Phrenologists developed many instruments for taking measurements, which were later adapted and adopted by anthropologists. [...] Though their work forms the foundation of modern anthropomentry, Morton was measuring skulls and publishing the results at least a decade before either Broca or Virchow became involved in anthropology. Morton employed a battery of cranial measurements in his analysis. [...] While Morton took a variety of measurements, he held the internal capacity (cranial capacity) as most important and used this measurement to determine his racial ranking. [...] Agassiz begins Principles with a brief explanation of how animal life is classified. Central to this explanation is his definition of what exactly constitutes genera and, more importantly, species. [...] In his own words, The Genus is founded upon some of the minor peculiarities of anatomical structure, such as the number, disposition, or proportions of the teeth, claws, fins, & c. and usually includes several kinds. The Species is founded upon less important distinctions, such as color, size, proportions, sculpture, & c. [...] In turn, this ideology was embraced by Josiah Nott and elaborated in his Indigenous Races of the Earth and Types of Mankind. [...] The American School's most passionate defender of polygenism, Josiah Clark Nott. [...] Like Morton, Nott points evidence from Egypt to argue the antiquity of the separate races. [...] Morton, Agassiz, and Nott presented a unified front in the defense of polygenism for over a decade before the American School went into sharp decline.

And from the lead section of this article:

Phrenology is a pseudomedicine primarily focused on measurements of the human skull, based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules.

If that doesn't satisfy then I give up, and I suggest you delete large parts of the Josiah C. Nott article if you're so inclined. nagual design 02:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Right, so the source simply does not support the text you inserted. I'm not sure how problematic the Nott article is, but it makes no mention of his supposed phrenological interests (which is why I doubted this content all along). In general, it is better to build articles from sources rather than try and retro-fit sources to match bogus text. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Footnote: it seems in fact that phrenology was popular both with pro-slavery types and abolitionists: both groups used it to argue their case. [1] Something on this may be worth mentioning. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• The above quote doesn't seem to tie Nott to phrenology at all. Phrenology was an enormous social (not just scientific) movement throughout the first half of the 19th century and was applied to all kinds of political and social problems -- why this attempt to give Nott a central role? I know a great deal about phrenology, because it's an important adjunct to a longstanding research project of mine, and I've never heard of him. E Eng 02:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Is it really apt to label phrenology as a "pseudoscience"? Obviously it's discredited but I found that Wikipedia generally uses the word pseudoscience to label beliefs that are more modern or still followed in the modern world, and/or whose followers were contemporaneously countered with decisively refuting evidence but ignored it regardless. Phrenology is an old theory that existed before advanced neuroscience, and while there were many opponents to it equally many scientists still confided in it and it influenced much of contemporary brain physiology and psychology until it was more conclusively disproven. Although its refutation came relatively quickly, I still think that it falls more appropriately under the category of obsolete scientific theories, akin to the miasma theory of disease or spontaneous generation of lifeforms, by virtue of how widely believed it was in the first half of the 19th century. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 11:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The sentence, “While it contributed to the advancement in understanding the brain and its functions, remaining skeptical is something that was learnt overtime.”, seems either badly formed or there is a type-o or word missing, but as I 1. do not have experience editing Wikipedia and 2. am not sure which of the above is happening, i.e how exactly to fix the sentence or if it just needs to be removed, I thought it better to simply note this for someone else to tackle. 2601:603:4D81:6720:694D:36D8:DB69:2A44 ( talk) 02:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I decided to edit it slightly, having maybe understood what it was attempting to say, but I still believe it and the sentence following may be better suited for deletion entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4D81:6720:2498:9126:1B88:3E63 ( talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

In the section Gender stereotyping this passage appears:

"Gender stereotyping was also common with phrenology. Women whose heads were generally larger in the back with lower foreheads were thought to have underdeveloped organs necessary for success in the arts and sciences while having larger mental organs relating to the care of children and religion. While phrenologists did not contest the existence of talented women, this minority did not provide justification for citizenship or participation in politics."

But nobody knows what the phrase this minority refers to.

I hope that someone knowledgeable about this subject will fix this. 2601:204:F181:9410:5874:FD97:CEEB:3FFB ( talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply