Several TIPSters have cited Stephen Jay Goulds *The Mismeasure of Man* for a place among great articles or books in science. One can understand why, as it reflects views that people of a liberal disposition feel is right and proper in the present age. And as such it has generally received highly favourable reviews in most publications. However, it has come under heavy criticism by reviewers who have a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. Bernard D. Davis commented that "While the non-scientific reviews of *The Mismeasure of Man* were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical." For instance, in "Nature" Steve Blackhorn wrote:
"With a glittering prose style and as honestly held a set of prejudices as you could hope to meet in a days crusading, S. J. Gould presents his attempt at identifying the fatal flaw in the theory and measurement of intelligence... The substantive discussion of the theory of intelligence stops at the stage it was in more than a quarter of a century ago." Blackhorn concludes that the *Mismeasure of Man* "is a book that exemplifies its own theses. It is a masterpiece of propaganda, researched in the service of a point of view rather than written from a fund of knowledge." Davis goes on to point to what he describes as "Goulds selective history", on which he writes: "...any purported scientific exposition of these topics [measurements of intelligence and of its hereditarian and environmental origins, and the social implications of the results] must be as dispassionate and objective as possible about the facts, whatever the social views the author favors. These are precious standards whose corruption we must resist. Unfortunately, throughout Goulds book they are not met." Again Davis: "The early chapters describe in detail some extremely naive nineteenth-century attempts to measure intelligence in terms of brain size or body shape. These are fossils from the history of science... Gould, however, uses them skillfully, both to give the impression of a thoroughly scholarly analysis and to arouse indignation at such evil uses of science [But] In the early stages of any science, na¨ve ideas, often reflecting the prejudice of the time are inevitable. Gould implies this legacy will persist; but history demonstrates that the advance of science depends on continually discarding false hypotheses and preconceptions To remind us of these roots [views of Broca, Agassiz, etc] in the history of racism is instructive but to imply a similar prejudice in todays investigations of intelligence is unfair." I think there is a natural tendency to give approbation to a book one has read that chimes with current bien pensant [sorry, sometimes one has to resort to the French for the mot juste :)] views, or one's own feeling of what is right and just. Unfortunately that sometimes results in a failure to question whether what one is reading is a fair account of the material it is purporting to report. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ References Blinkhorn, S. What Skulduggery? Nature 296, 506 506, 8 April 1982, Spring Books Supplement. Carroll, J. B. Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's *The Mismeasure of Man (1981).* Intelligence 21, 121-134, 1995. Davis, B. D. Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press. The Public Interest (Fall 1983): 41-59. Reprinted in B. D. Davis. *Storm Over Biology: Essays on Science, Sentiment, and Public Policy.* Prometheus Books, 1986, pp. 114-131. --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
