REALL News - Vol 07 No 02 - 1999

Magazine Overview

This issue of REALL (The REALL News) is Volume 7, Issue 2, dated February 1999. It is presented as a Special 6th Anniversary Issue and features an article titled "Dr. Kreider Speaks Out Part 2: On Phrenology" by Randy Alley. The article delves into the critique of phrenology by Dr. Michael Z. Kreider.

Dr. Kreider Speaks Out: On Phrenology

The article begins by defining phrenology as a pseudoscience that claimed to be a system of philosophy of the human mind based on brain physiology. Phrenologists believed the brain was composed of numerous organs, each corresponding to specific traits or faculties. During Kreider's time, the exact number and nature of these organs were unknown, with each phrenologist professing unique discoveries. Kreider's approach was to examine the scientific validity of phrenology's premises and highlight its humorous contradictions.

Phrenologists asserted that the size and shape of these supposed brain organs determined the size and shape of the skull, allowing for the identification of an individual's strengths and weaknesses through skull measurement. They suggested that by exercising specific organs, individuals could develop desired traits and achieve any goal. Kreider sarcastically noted the phrenologists' claims, suggesting that if true, all other systems of mental and moral science would be false, and that understanding character would become a matter of mathematics and geometry.

Kreider believed that simple answers to complex human problems did not exist and that self-improvement through simple exercises was unrealistic. He was particularly critical of Franz Joseph Gall and his followers, whom he considered to have an inflated sense of their own importance, placing themselves above figures like Benjamin Franklin.

Kreider's primary objection to phrenology was its lack of scientific proof. He stated that Gall's theory had been tested and found to be scientifically false. He argued that phrenology's claims were not only unproven but also contradictory and ineffective. While acknowledging that phrenology may have indirectly contributed to scientific inquiry by prompting investigation into the brain's functional areas, Kreider emphasized that this was not a direct result of phrenological discovery itself.

He drew a parallel between phrenology and alchemy, noting that while alchemists never found the philosopher's stone, their investigations led to some scientific discoveries, such as Paracelsus's work on disease causation. Similarly, phrenology's focus on brain regions influenced by functions, exemplified by the case of Phineas Gage, was a contribution. Gage, a railroad worker, survived an accident where an iron rod passed through his prefrontal cortex, leading to significant changes in his behavior. Phrenologists used this as evidence for their theories, but Kreider saw it as proof that specific brain areas controlled functions, not that the brain was a collection of distinct organs as phrenology proposed.

Kreider vehemently attacked the second principle of phrenology, which posited that the brain was a congeries of distinct organs, each controlling a specific faculty. He argued that physiology provided no evidence for this. Phrenologists claimed over thirty different organs (or more than sixty if paired organs were counted), but even the most ardent among them admitted that neither the eye nor the scalpel could reveal such a division. Kreider contended that if these organs were discernible, they would be observable like nerves of motion and sensation. The assumption of distinct organs, he argued, was a dogma that raised doubts about its veracity.

Kreider criticized phrenologists for their inability to prove the existence of separate brain organs, suggesting their "science" was a matter of faith. He questioned why, given the extensive study of the human brain by physiologists, phrenologists insisted on their theory without evidence. He posed two logical questions for investigation: the relation between brain size and mental capacity across species, and the conditions required for healthful mental and instinctive performances. However, he warned against "rash speculations" that moved beyond empirical observation into unfounded assumptions about the nature of the mind.

Kreider further questioned the phrenological premise by examining the physical points of phrenology. He believed that if distinct organs existed, they should be anatomically visible and measurable with absolute precision, not within the ranges phrenologists used. He pointed to experiments by physiologists like Flourens, who demonstrated that large portions of the brain could be removed from animals without significantly impairing intelligence, suggesting the brain functions as a unified whole. These experiments indicated that the entire brain, or cerebral substance, was a unit in functional action, with the whole contributing to intelligence. Kreider highlighted contradictions, such as Gall placing the love of offspring in the posterior lobes, which are absent in many mammals and birds.

He also challenged phrenology's attribution of sensation to the cerebrum, noting that insects, lacking a cerebrum, possess sensation. He argued that the cerebellum, which phrenology linked to sexual propensity, is actually involved in coordinating voluntary muscular actions and maintaining equilibrium. Comparative anatomy and physiology disproved phrenology's position on this matter. Kreider concluded that the dictums of phrenology were self-defeating when examined against anatomical and physiological facts.

Kreider also pointed out that phrenologists ignored a significant portion of the brain – the part not in contact with the skull. He questioned the purpose of this unappropriated cerebral surface, theorizing that if these organs existed, they would be pressed outward by the larger cerebellum and mesencephalon. He concluded that the "embryonic development of the human cerebrum has determined this controversy against Phrenology," as these facts were never disproved and directly contradicted phrenology.

Kreider stated that phrenology's alleged contribution – discovering which parts of the mind control certain functions – was false. Science had already established that different brain parts controlled functions, and that the mind weakens with age. He described phrenology as an absurd, false philosophy whose principles were inconsistent with self-evident truths. He believed science had proven that the organs of the mind did not exist and that phrenologists conjured them up using magical means, making the idea of unseen organs controlling destiny utterly false.

References

The article concludes with a list of references, primarily citing the "Kreider Manuscript of Phrenology and Mesmerism" by Michael Z. Kreider, edited by Randall Alley, as well as a publication on the Phineas Gage case and a work by O. S. Fowler.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The central theme of this issue is the critical examination of pseudoscience, specifically phrenology, through the lens of historical scientific inquiry. The article champions a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding the human mind and brain, contrasting it with the speculative and unproven claims of phrenology. The editorial stance, as represented by the featured critique from Dr. Kreider and the publication of the article, is clearly in favor of scientific rigor and against the acceptance of unsubstantiated theories. The magazine appears to be dedicated to exploring topics related to the mind, history, and potentially the paranormal or fringe sciences, but with a critical and analytical perspective.