View Single Post
Old 04-14-2016, 12:16 PM
Surreal Surreal is offline
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,103
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
That's not remotely a good example. Gould's views may be controversial but are not considered to be "crank levels of wrong." And the last two "cites" are a blog and a speech by an economist. Not exactly a good indication of Gould's reputation in the field.
Okay, but no comments at all on the first link? The one that said "almost every detail of his analysis is wrong", “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results”, and "I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.”