The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.

The discovery of nearly 180-year-old cranial measurements in the archives of 19th century American physician and naturalist Samuel George Morton can address a lingering debate, begun in the late 20th century by paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, about the unconscious bias all...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Paul Wolff Mitchell
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018-10-01
Series:PLoS Biology
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6171794?pdf=render
id doaj-d6c2ee96b6654f7dba2fa6419d52cd05
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d6c2ee96b6654f7dba2fa6419d52cd052021-07-02T03:58:51ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Biology1544-91731545-78852018-10-011610e200700810.1371/journal.pbio.2007008The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.Paul Wolff MitchellThe discovery of nearly 180-year-old cranial measurements in the archives of 19th century American physician and naturalist Samuel George Morton can address a lingering debate, begun in the late 20th century by paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, about the unconscious bias alleged in Morton's comparative data of brain size in human racial groups. Analysis of Morton's lost data and the records of his studies does not support Gould's arguments about Morton's biased data collection. However, historical contextualization of Morton with his scientific peers, especially German anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann, suggests that, while Morton's data may have been unbiased, his cranial race science was not. Tiedemann and Morton independently produced similar data about human brain size in different racial groups but analyzed and interpreted their nearly equivalent results in dramatically different ways: Tiedemann using them to argue for equality and the abolition of slavery, and Morton using them to entrench racial divisions and hierarchy. These differences draw attention to the epistemic limitations of data and the pervasive role of bias within the broader historical, social, and cultural context of science.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6171794?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Paul Wolff Mitchell
spellingShingle Paul Wolff Mitchell
The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
PLoS Biology
author_facet Paul Wolff Mitchell
author_sort Paul Wolff Mitchell
title The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
title_short The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
title_full The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
title_fullStr The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
title_full_unstemmed The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science.
title_sort fault in his seeds: lost notes to the case of bias in samuel george morton's cranial race science.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS Biology
issn 1544-9173
1545-7885
publishDate 2018-10-01
description The discovery of nearly 180-year-old cranial measurements in the archives of 19th century American physician and naturalist Samuel George Morton can address a lingering debate, begun in the late 20th century by paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, about the unconscious bias alleged in Morton's comparative data of brain size in human racial groups. Analysis of Morton's lost data and the records of his studies does not support Gould's arguments about Morton's biased data collection. However, historical contextualization of Morton with his scientific peers, especially German anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann, suggests that, while Morton's data may have been unbiased, his cranial race science was not. Tiedemann and Morton independently produced similar data about human brain size in different racial groups but analyzed and interpreted their nearly equivalent results in dramatically different ways: Tiedemann using them to argue for equality and the abolition of slavery, and Morton using them to entrench racial divisions and hierarchy. These differences draw attention to the epistemic limitations of data and the pervasive role of bias within the broader historical, social, and cultural context of science.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6171794?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT paulwolffmitchell thefaultinhisseedslostnotestothecaseofbiasinsamuelgeorgemortonscranialracescience
AT paulwolffmitchell faultinhisseedslostnotestothecaseofbiasinsamuelgeorgemortonscranialracescience
_version_ 1721340947635109888