Stephen Jay Gould The Geometer Of Race Summary

Traditionally history of the Americas and American population has been taught in a direction heading west from Europe to the California frontier. In Recovering History, Constructing Race, Martha Mencahca locates the origins of the history of the Americas in a floral pattern where migration from Asia, Europe, and Africa both voluntary and forced converge magnetically in Mexico then spreads out again to the north and northeast. By creating this patters she complicates the idea of race, history, and nationality. The term Mexican, which today refers to a specific nationality

It wasn’t long before Gould’s precision became apparent, as he revisited most of his references in order to explain their significance. Although not all of the references were accessible to the general reader from the beginning, the eventual unfolding and connecting of key ideas were rewards for the diligent reader. It felt like an accomplishment to be able to fill my partner in on the details, as if Gould had given me permission to reap the benefits of his expertise.

Gould praises Alvarez for his theory and the fact that it is flexible and sparks debate. Consider this: a man proclaims to the world that the sky is gray. This is not based off of any factual evidence, and it sparks no debate because people will either believe the theory against factual evidence or disagree with it because it is not factual. Now if a man were to say the sky is blue and openly inquire about why it is that color, new doors are opened, and discussion is created. Most people would believe this man, because his theory is based off of factual evidence, and it would generate a discussion because his theory raises a new question that can be spoke on limitlessly. This is the same point that Gould is trying to make; baseless thoughts shun discussion while factual ideas tend to open a forum for debate and new ideas.

Stephen Jay Gould analyses Paul Broca’s data of inferior women to superior men through the study of Craniometry in his piece, Women’s Brains. While Broca claims women are unintelligent when compared to men through thorough measurement of the brain; Gould realizes the accusations are false due to their combination of science to social correlation and beliefs. Gould argues that women are not inferior; they are only baring the brunt of unfair scientific research conducted to prove society beliefs. Even the most reliable scientific data and research is not valid within the study of social norms and accepted society stereotypes.

Dr. Loring Boring and Dr. George Gill fall on the opposite sides of the argument about race. Dr. Brace view is one that say’s “There is no such thing as biological entity that warrants the term race.” (Brace) While Dr. Gill

Kitcher rejects relying on objective science, a science that sometimes falsely labels diseases according to society views and biases. For example, masturbation and homosexuality were falsely labeled as disorders. The outcomes of objective science are unreliable and bring about social prejudices instead of promoting health and life .

Scholars say that the term race should not be used because it does not have any basis in scientific fact and really has no use today. According to the AAA’s statement on race, there is 94% variance in genes of individuals within one “racial” group. Race has its basis in colonization, when trying to conjure reasons why some groups of people, i.e. Native Americans and Africans, had lower places in society than the white people. That’s why the groups of “races” are so broad and meaningless today. The concept of race is just used to spread prejudice and give so called “scientific reasons” to discriminate against another group. The term

Back when the European explorers discovered people who did not look like them it started racial conflicts. They questioned if the natives where human and did not treat them as equals. In the nineteenth century Max Webber disregarded the biological explanations for racial conflict and emphasized the social and political factors which engendered such conflicts. Since Webber did this it began changing perspective on race. In the text is states that in the contemporary social science literature race is assumed to be a variable which it shaped by broader societal force. In this time race is not seen as difference in skin color but difference in status. Which made society believe one race is better than the others. Over the years the meaning of race has changed tremendously. For example, the existence of water is not based on collective acceptance, or

Comparatively, a scientific essay, “Coming to Our Senses” written by Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the importance of acknowledging the weaknesses in humans in order for technologyto advance. Furthermore, the painting “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus”

Is “theory” a contradictory scientific term? Many people define “theory” as a set of unjustifiable propositions, whereas others believe a “theory” is a “coherent set of principles used to explain a class of phenomena” (Kingsolver 208). The contrasting interpretation of “theory” results from the fluctuating amount of information circulating on this term. Although the word “theory” is a prime example of how people interpret ideas distinctively, people can develop new insights on their previous ideas or thoughts once they gain more knowledge from books or experience. Barbara Kingsolver, a biologist, conveys in her essay, “A Fist in the Eye of God,” that humans are divided over the acceptance of evolution and the scientific understandings of

Wells’ articles… is whether ordinary people should be allowed to know the facts and should discuss their implications” (Woolf 498). This excerpt is a prime example of the division between science and religion that was occurring throughout the time period within this book was written. Many people began to support Wells in his beliefs of scientific principles such as Darwinism. However, there were those who strongly dejected it and even became hostile that those scientific ideas were available to the public. The reason the ideas were so easily accessible were because of literary interpretation in controversial books such as The Island of Dr. Moreau.

When it comes to the evidence that he uses in his article mostly came from personal evidence with more opinionated evidence. There is very little actual and proven factual evidence, but of what little there is, I can see none that is unbiased. For example " If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous." (4) This is accurate, yet very biased and I feel that it is not very necessary, but does help with his point of view.

Biological determinism as stated by Gould, states “that shared behavioral norms, and the social and economic differences between human groups-primarily races, classes, and sexes-arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology” (Gould, p.52). He explains this idea further through his explanation of how biological determinism can be measured or assigned based on the craniometry, which is the size of the skull, for at the time it was believed that the larger the skull, the more intelligent that individual was. This explanation became one of the earliest works connected to scientific racism. Gould, believed that during this time many scientists used their own prejudices, and bias’s when concluding their research, such as the work of French anthropologist, Paul Broca, who stated that “the small brains of women” concluded that men were to be regarded as more intelligent, as well as, above women, however, although women did prove this prejudice to be wrong with “their talents and their diplomas”, they were still “opposed by numbers” (Gould, p. 58). “Biological determinism is, in its essence, a theory of limits” for it states that people who are at the bottom are basically biologically inferior, which is reflected in their social status (Gould, p. 60). Both Darwin and Mendel contributed to biological determinism and scientific racism, is that both opened the doors to new anthropological scientific

However, some researchers, such as Steven Gould (1978), suggest that prejudice was used in the scientific method used by Broca, and test subjects may have been specifically selected to validate the social beliefs of the time rather than to test an unproven theory.

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat