Explain why Fencher was so critical of the "feckless method" by which Gall tested his hypotheesis?

-- Gay Prevost (gprevost1@juno.com), June 26, 2002

Answers

Where did Fechner write this?

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), June 27, 2002.

I'm not familiar specifically with Fechner's criticism of Gall, but here are a few sources you might check:

Barker, F. G. (1995). Phineas among the phrenologists: The American crowbar case and nineteenth-century theories of cerebral localization. Journal of Neurosurgery, 82, 672-682.

Davies, J. D. (1971). Phrenology: Fad and science, a 19th century American crusade. No City: Archon Books. (Original work published 1955)

Fancher, R. E. (1996). Gall, Flourens, and phrenology. In R. E. Fancher, Pioneers of psychology (pp. 75 86). New York: W. W. Norton.

Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. See the section on phrenology.

Leahey, T. H., & Leahey, G. E. (1983). Psychology's occult doubles: Psychology and the problem of pseudoscience. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Rawlings, C. E., & Rossitch, E. (1994). Franz Josef Gall and his contribution to neuroanatomy with emphasis on the brain stem. Surgical Neurology, 42, 272 275.

Vande Kemp, H. (1998). Christian psychologies for the 21st century: Lessons from history. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 197-209. In this article I examine the phrenologists as a "case study" illustrating a common error: starting with a plausible hypothesis which cannot yet be tested because of methodological problems, then turning this into practice which is not later measured against new research findings.

-- Hendrika Vande Kemp (hendrika@earthlink.net), June 27, 2002.