This weeks article is again from the Book Review section of the NYTimes on April 28, 1890. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the history of Physiognomy so I am learning about it a little bit today as I post this. It is essentially Phrenology of the face, even more ridiculous and can be used for racist conclusions more readily. From Wikipedia:
Physiognomy (Gk. physis, nature and gnomon, judge, interpreter) is a theory based upon the idea that the study and judgement of a person's outer appearance, primarily the face, may give insights into their character or personality. The term physiognomy is also used to refer to the general appearance of a person, object, or terrain, without reference to its underlying or scientific characteristics.
So onto the book review. This time the NYTimes gets the right idea (even though some present day people still don't) that the book they're reviewing is a bunch of baloney.
The article goes on in some more detail but you get the point ;)
Ohh... and don't forget about this great quote from the article!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Old fun: Music on an iPod | Newer fun: Watching porn on the iPod | Newest fun: Listening to lectures!
Apple Inc is letting NJIT Professors post their lectures, and other audio and video class information on its iTunes U website - where students can go and then download whatever material they want…
NEW York City in the 1920s and '30s was a hotbed of criminal activity. Prohibition laws banning the production, sale and distribution of alcohol had been introduced, but instead of reducing crime, they had the opposite effect. Gangsters organized themselves and seized control of the alcohol…
I had tried to give the Dr. Mark Geier and his son David a rest for a while, as I suspected my readers may have been getting a little tired of my bashing them, no matter how deserved that bashing may have been. After all, they do shoddy science in the service of "proving" that mercury in vaccines…
Why are so many people convinced that we only use 10% of our brains, or that Eskimos have n words for snow, where n is as high as you need it to be for the desired rhetorical effect? Or more seriously, why have some people, particularly Fox News viewers (no, really), persistently believed in Saddam…