Konkvistador comments on Scientific misconduct misdiagnosed because of scientific misconduct - Less Wrong

44 Post author: GLaDOS 10 June 2011 02:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (54)

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 June 2011 06:48:04PM *  7 points [-]

Reminds me somewhat of the study that took another look at some of the work of Franz Boas. It was first brought to my attention by Nicholas Wade's article about it in the NYT:

Dr. Jantz said that Boas ''was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it work that way.''

Very intent apparently.

Abstract of the 2002 study:

In 1912, Franz Boas published a study demonstrating the plastic nature of the human body in response to changes in the environment. The results of this study have been cited for the past 90 years as evidence of cranial plasticity. These findings, however, have never been critiqued thoroughly for their statistical and biological validity. This study presents a reassessment of Boas' data within a modern statistical and quantitative genetic framework. The data used here consist of head and face measurements on over 8,000 individuals of various European ethnic groups. By using pedigree information contained in Boas' data, narrow sense heritabilities are estimated by the method of maximum likelihood. In addition, a series of t tests and regression analyses are performed to determine the statistical validity of Boas' original findings on differentiation between American and European-born children and the prolonged effect of the environment on cranial form. Results indicate the relatively high genetic component of the head and face diameters despite the environmental differences during development. Results point to very small and insignificant differences between European- and American-born offspring, and no effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. These results contradict Boas' original findings and demonstrate that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology.

Comment author: hairyfigment 10 June 2011 08:16:11PM 2 points [-]

That does interest me. Why did people citing Boas think it made sense to talk about "the American environment"? Even the USA had 48 states by the end of February 1912.

From the OP:

the full range of average capacities is seen in Native American groups, as they historically occupied the full range of latitudes, say the study authors.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 February 2012 10:00:37AM 2 points [-]

That does interest me. Why did people citing Boas think it made sense to talk about "the American environment"? Even the USA had 48 states by the end of February 1912.

Think of it as a category like "developed world".

Comment author: satt 12 June 2011 02:58:09AM 0 points [-]

At the same time, some other anthropologists dispute Sparks & Jantz's conclusion that Boas was incorrect. From the abstract of the paper I'm linking:

In two recent articles, we and another set of researchers independently reanalyzed data from Franz Boas’s classic study of immigrants and their descendants. Whereas we confirm Boas’s overarching conclusion regarding the plasticity of cranial form, Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz argue that Boas was incorrect. Here we attempt to reconcile these apparently incompatible conclusions. We first address methodological differences between our reanalyses and suggest that (1) Sparks and Jantz posed a different set of questions than we did, and (2) their results are largely consistent with our own. We then discuss our differing understandings of Boas’s original argument and of the concept of cranial plasticity. In particular, we argue that Sparks and Jantz attribute to Boas a position he explicitly rejected. When we clarify Boas’s position and place the immigrant study in historical context, Sparks and Jantz’s renalysis supports our conclusion that, on the whole, Boas got it right.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit