>The paleoanthroplogist C. Loring Brace,
>who recounted the Morton story referred to in my earlier note, is of course a
>noted anti-racist and collaborator of Ashley Montagu, who Norman quotes.
The reference to racists refers to people like Rushton, whose
disgusting review of Gould was cited favorably in your earlier
post.(For those who can stomach it, it is available at:
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/jprnr.html.) As one critic has put it,
Rushton's "work manages to reinforce virutally every racial
stereotype common in American folk culture from the nineteenth
century to the present."
>I don't see any reference to the paper by Michael at the URL you give.
The quotation about Michael comes from another document on Norman's website.
>certainly agree with Gould that "unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is
>probably endemic in science".
So then you won't be shocked that it appears to have occurred in Morton's case.
>Here is Brace's reference again:
>Amen to that, Ralph. John S. Michael's paper appeared in Current
>Anthropology in April, 1988. Gould did acknowledge his mistake in a
>chapter in Sandra Harding (ed.) The "Racial" Economy of Science: Toward a
>Democratic Future (1993). He noted that he had not gone to Morton's
>original text but worked from a Xerox copy of Morton's chart and read the
>mean for the African sample as 80 when the range was 84-98. As he
>admitted, "I never waw the inconsistency -- presumably because a low value
>of 80 fit my hopes." As he noted, "The reason for this error is
>embarrasing" (footnote on p. 109). Since he wrote so much on the history
>of ideas and the history of science, he, of all people, should have known
>better, but he was persistently susceptible to reflecting what Herbert
>Butterfield called "Whig History," or "presentism," that is interperting
>the outlook of the people of the past from the perspective of the values
>of the present.
Apparently in addition to not bothering to read Gould, you also
didn't bother to read my original response, so I will repeat it. The
quote from Gould above originally appears in the first edition of The
Mismeasure of Man itself. It corrects an error in his 1978 Science
article (so much for the myth that Gould refused to acknowledge
criticism) but, despite what Brace implies, it is not in any way a
retraction of the well-documented case against Morton presented in