|
I don't know what place you mean. Making a point with another example doesn't put you anywhere special.
You are saying that phrenology, as silly as it was, deserves mention in a historical context. That is what some are arguing when it comes to Freud.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/22/04 2:07:33 PM >>> Michael Scoles wrote:
---
I assume this was intended to "put me in my place," but how does one teach the history of psychology without teaching about phrenology? Gall was the most important brain scientist (as we would now say) of his day, and Broca's report on "Tan" was understood, in its time, primarily as a confirmation of Gall's claim that language was located in the frontal lobe. (See the second paragraph of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Broca/aphemie.htm or of its translation into Englsh at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Broca/aphemie-e.htm.) Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
- Re: freud again Michael Scoles
- RE: Freud again Aubyn Fulton
- Re: Freud again Scott O Lilienfeld PhD
