In the Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould delivers a thorough and convincing argument, debunking many of history's faulty attempts at "measuring" and "ranking" mankind.
Science has been used for poor ends throughout its existence and needs skeptical and faithful scientists to do the work of confirming or debunking the studies that have come before.Through the "truths" of science the discrimination of men and women of darker skin color has been justified and deemed reasonable because of the bolstering of science. Criminals and the less intelligent have been slated for forced sterilization on the foundations of scientific findings.
Gould endeavors to show that our prior categorizing of people has been faulty. He describes and debunks past scientists' attempts to rank intelligences and value based on a people group's intelligences, skull sizes, brain sizes, criminal status, color, or IQ tests.
Gould does the testing and skeptical work of the scientific method work effectively and convincingly. He also brings a sense of justice to long-skewed beliefs.
Gould restores justice by redeeming the use of science to protect people rather than categorize them for nefarious ends. Where others have wield the method for discriminating outworkings, Gould properly applies it and lifts our understanding of the value of people back to its proper place.
Distance is a helpful partner in Gould's work. Much time has elapsed since these arguments were published, made popular, supported funding, and came and went as standard thinking. With distance, Gould was able to impartially look at how the experiments were conducted and where the faults were missed or ignored.
I agree with the need for skepticism but it seems to lack the necessary sharpness the closer to the present we do the examining.
For more than a decade there has been a surge in popularity of science, on the lay level, fueling, and being fueled by, a plethora of popular level science books expounding on experiments in psychology, business, nutrition, and many others areas. Unfortunately, these books are published so quickly, or findings proclaimed on TV or podcasts, that many only hear the initial discovery and rarely hear the later clarification or debunking after the experiment is retried for verification. At this point, the finding has already been applied, or process and system reorganized, to account of the discovery.
In the past 10 years, I have heard amazing new studies, and have even tried to apply them, only to hear them later listed as unreproducible, and thus faulty, a couple years later. While I applaud the skepticism and scientific method that debunked the false claim I am wary of the uncritical love of science that proclaimed the "finding" before it was validated and confirmed.
At the end of the book, after summarily debunking the measurers, Gould reminds us of the need of skepticism in science. This should be met with wholehearted agreement and, in response, we need more scientists to join the ranks and engage the method with skepticism and a firm desire to find the truths of the universe.
Let's verify and confirm our findings before we use them, and whatever practical ends they recommend, lest we be the laughable generation in a Gould style book a generation from now.
The scientific method is a wonderful tool. Let’s use all of its steps to search the universe for the answers of its workings.