[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 19 Mar 2008 at 8:57, Christopher D. Green wrote: > > >> It's a whole new game out there and our old claims about the effects of > >> genes will soon look very much like our old claims about the effects of > >> phrenology -- based on a deep misunderstanding of the ways in which >> things actually work. >> > > Well, I'm not aware of any wholesale trashing or abandonment of what we > know of genetics, or even of behaviour genetics, even as the field moves > ahead with impressive achievements. If we can ask for references for the > bold assertions of Michael S., perhaps this equally bold claim deserves a > reference or two. > There are no references for the future. > And even old phrenology may deserve a better press. It never completely > disappeared--it turned into localization of function and, more recently, > functional imaging studies. > Indeed, it has long had one among historians of psychology. Gall was no fool. He was just wrong. Spurziheim personal ambition led him to make extravagant claims. Combe was after political goals.
Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo Office: 416-736-2100 ext. 66164 Fax: 416-736-5814 ========================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
