BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Lewis & Clark//NONSGML v1.0//EN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20140309T100000 RDATE:20140309T100000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:STANDARD TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20141102T090000 RDATE:20141102T090000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20140404T131000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20140404T142500 LOCATION:Gregg Pavilion GEO:45.4506477144909;-122.671172383575 SUMMARY:"Morton's Skulls\, Gould's Statistics\, and the Objectivity of Da ta" by Jonathan Kaplan (Oregon State University) DESCRIPTION:In 2011\, Lewis et al published a paper arguing that Gould's criticisms of Morton's analyses of skull volumes were\, broadly\, mistake n. Gould had argued that the average differences in the volumes of skulls between the 'races' reported by Morton were the result of Morton's uncon scious biases\; Gould further argued that more appropriate methods showed no average volume differences of any significance. Lewis et al counter t hat in fact Morton's analysis is to be preferred\, and Gould's analysis i nappropriate and biased. But both Gould and Lewis et al are mistaken\; bo th attempt\, somewhat foolishly\, \;to analyze data that cannot spea k to the questions it is supposed to. In the end\, arguments about the be st statistical techniques to deploy serve only to obscure the poverty of the data. While it is possible to accurately measure the skulls that Mort on happened to collect\, and both Gould and Lewis et al believe\, in the end\, that Morton did so\, there is no appropriate way to use those skull s to answer any of the plausibly interesting questions about the 'populat ions' from which those skulls were drawn (often stolen). Followed by a p anel discussion with: Jay Odenbaugh\, Lewis &\; Clark College Janet Kourany\, University of Notre Dame Scott Gilbert\, Swarthmore College J onathan Kaplan\, Oregon State University Quayshawn Spencer\, University of San Francisco X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:
In 2011\, Lewis et al published a paper arguing that Gould's criticisms of Morton's analyses of skull volumes we re\, broadly\, mistaken. Gould had argued that the average differences in the volumes of skulls between the 'races' reported by Morton were the re sult of Morton's unconscious biases\; Gould further argued that more appr opriate methods showed no average volume differences of any significance. Lewis et al counter that in fact Morton's analysis is to be preferred\, and Gould's analysis inappropriate and biased. But both Gould and Lewis e t al are mistaken\; both attempt\, somewhat foolishly\, \;to analyze data that cannot speak to the questions it is supposed to. In the end\, arguments about the best statistical techniques to deploy serve only to o bscure the poverty of the data. While it is possible to accurately measur e the skulls that Morton happened to collect\, and both Gould and Lewis e t al believe\, in the end\, that Morton did so\, there is no appropriate way to use those skulls to answer any of the plausibly interesting questi ons about the 'populations' from which those skulls were drawn (often sto len).
Followed by a panel discussion with:
Jay Odenbaugh\
, Lewis &\; Clark College
Janet Kourany\, University of Notre D
ame
Scott Gilbert\, Swarthmore College
Jonathan Kaplan\, Or
egon State University
Quayshawn Spencer\, University of San Franci
sco
\n Jay Odenbaugh
\, Lewis &\; Clark College
\n Janet Kourany\, University of Notr
e Dame
\n Scott Gilbert\, Swarthmore College
\n Jonathan Kapl
an\, Oregon State University
\n Quayshawn Spencer\, University of S
an Francisco\n