Sources? I don’t believe anyone has been using science (biological cognitive differences?) to exclude individuals from jobs, beyond the perfectly acceptable “let’s not hire the stupid and incompetent when we can hire someone less stupid and less incompetent”
If I cherry-pick 1 study out of 10 which corroborates my worldiew and use it to cudgel my oppressive point home, that is not a "science problem," the problem there is that someone must step up and point out that 9 other studies did not have results in agreement with that one person's worldview!
That was what I was responding to. Yes, people have used science as an excuse to do those very things.
Gall was taking real measurements inspired by:
- the faulty premise that there was a closer relationship between small differences in the exterior of the head and the brain than ultimately existed
- the ultimately borne-out premise that different mental faculties are closely related with different physical parts of the brain
If the science underpinning most but not all interpretations of fMRI results was debunked in the next 20 years, it seems like there would still be "actual science" behind the incorrect conclusions. How/where do you draw the line between phrenology's primitive grasp of the relationship between mental faculties and brain areas and the manifestation of the same concept in fMRI?
Fear of the truth... Always a good reason to not do something. ::eyeroll::
That you seem to think "something" should be done at all in response to this study only validates the fear.
I get the sense there is a fear that concrete evidence of biological cognitive differences will give cover to discrimination, and likely broader discrimination than the evidence really "supports."