SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE: PHRENOLOGY AS A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY SHERRIE LYONS * Phrenology is often cited as a classic example of pseudoscience, with its practitioners dismissed as quacks. However, historians and philosophers of science have pointed out that the distinction ofwhat in the midst of discovery constitutes science and what does not is not clear-cut [1-3]. Nevertheless , their analysis for the most part has been applied only to historical cases or modern-day investigations which have already been labeled marginal, such as parapsychology. This essay takes seriously the problematic nature of the pseudoscience/science distinction by comparing and contrasting phrenology with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists should play close attention to the history of phrenology, or indeed history will be in danger of repeating itself. While some of the ideas of phrenology seem patently ridiculous to us today, the basic underpinnings remain the basis for our modern-day understanding of mental phenomena. Franz Joseph Gall, a Viennese physician, developed a theory of the brain and a science ofcharacter that later became known as phrenology, although the origin ofthe actual term remains obscure [4]. Gall and his protégé Johann Spurzheim described an 1815 article by Thomas Forster, on the anatomy of the nervous system, which used the term phrenology [5]. However, possibly the term was used as early as 1805 by Benjamin Rush, when he mentioned "the state of phrenology if I may be allowed to coin a word to designate the science of the mind" in some lectures [6, 7]. Some people give priority to Spurzheim for inventing and The author wishes to thank Shaun Nichols, who suggested references that were invaluable as well as providing important clarification on the evolutionary and cognitive psychology literature ; and Gar Allen and an anonymous reviewer, who made several suggestions which helped clarify the issue and tighten up my arguments. *Daemen College, 4380 Main Street, Amherst, NY 14226.© 1998 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0031-5982/98/4003-1043$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 4 ¦ .Summer 1998 491 popularizing the term phrenology. He knew Forster and in 1818 first used "phraenologie" in the title of his book [8]. Regardless of the precise origins of the term [9], it is important to distinguish Gall's ideas from the simple craniology that the term phrenology later came to mean. The core of Gall's ideas include: 1 . The brain is the organ of the mind. 2.The brain is not a homogenous unity, but an aggregate of mental organs with specific functions. 3.The cerebral organs are topographically localized. 4.Other things being equal, the relative size of any particular mental organ is indicative of the power or strength of that organ. 5.Since the skull ossifies over the brain during infant development, external craniological means could be used to diagnose the internal states of the mental characters. Gall was influenced by physiognomy, "the act ofjudging character and disposition from the features of the face or form and lineaments of the body generally" (Oxford Dictionary). Such ideas were in great vogue mainly due to the writings and lectures ofJohann Caspar Lavater (17411801 ). Even as a boy, Gall had noticed that his fellow students who had good memories often had bulging eyes. In the 1790s, while in medical school, he began to make systematic observations, mainly of inmates in prisons and mental asylums, trying to find correlations between the external structures ofthe head and general powers such as memory and imagination . He found many exceptions and instead turned to more specific traits, for example, a talent in music, painting, or mathematics. In this endeavor he was more successful and eventually came up with 27 organs or faculties of the brain [10]. However, Gall was not satisfied with simple craniology. Turning away from physiognomy, he investigated what he called cerebral physioloigy, and the distinction is important. According to the principles of physiognomy, a person's features expresses his character. But Gall disagreed. The body is not the expression of the character. Rather "the object of my researches is the brain. The cranium is only a faithful cast of the external surface of the brain and is consequently, but a...
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2001
James Wallenstein 
Open Access