Advertisement

Gould's bias

A new study finds that Stephen J. Gould's criticisms of another scientist's data was misplaced, and the eminent biologist and historian succumbed to data bias himself.

By | June 16, 2011

Human skullWIKIMEDIA COMMONS, XERTO

In 1978, Stephen J. Gould published a criticism of the work of Samuel Morton, a prominent physician who concluded that Caucasians were cognitively superior to other races due to their higher average skull volume. Gould accused Morton of "unconscious manipulation of data," saying that the scientist's data were a "patchwork of assumption and finagling, controlled, probably unconsciously, by his conventional a priori ranking."

But in a study published last Tuesday (June 7) in PLoS Biology, researchers at Stanford University and the Paleoanthropology Institute in Oakland, California, re-measured Morton's skulls, and found that Gould, not Morton, was subject to cherry-picking data. Morton's numbers differed from the re-analysis in only seven cases, none of which favored his theory of Caucasian superiority, Wired reports. Gould, on the other hand, omitted several skulls that would have affected his results in a non-preferential way. "Gould's own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results," the authors conclude.

 

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo
Advertisement

Popular Now

  1. Most Earth-like Planet Found
  2. AAAAA Is for Arrested Translation
  3. Four-legged Snake Fossil Found
  4. The Sum of Our Parts
    Features The Sum of Our Parts

    Putting the microbiome front and center in health care, in preventive strategies, and in health-risk assessments could stem the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases.

Advertisement
Advertisement