Neuroscience and the Pseudoscience of Phrenology

Author

Institution

Introduction

Neuroscience has always been a fundamental science as far as understanding the functioning of the human body is concerned. The term neuroscience underlines the scientific study that deals in the nervous system (Bear et al, 2001). Scholars have underlined the fact that neuroscience is similar in some way to the pseudoscience of phrenology. This is especially with regard to the fact that both have their foundations on the interconnectivity between nervous activities and biology (Hayes, 2005). For instance scientists state that the brain regions that are associated with sensitivity to reward are larger than normal for extraverts (Bear et al, 2001). This was the same case for neuroticism, which scientists associated with brain regions that were involved in punishment and threat. Indeed, brain studies strongly supported the notion that the big fiver personality traits incorporate a biological foundation except for the intellect or openness, the umbrella for aesthetics, imagination and intelligence (Hayes, 2005). Even in this case, there existed strong evidence linking the trait to the center of the brain for working memory, reasoning and attention.

However, some differences exist between contemporary neuroscience and phrenology. This is especially with regard to the fact that contemporary neuroscience is based on science whereas phrenology is yet to meet scientific conditions to be classified as true. Indeed, scholars have outlined the fact that phrenology was based on extremely small sets of uncontrolled observations presented as scientific evidence (Fowler & Fowler, 2006). Scholars have noted that phrenology is yet to undergo extensive experimental verification, in which case it falls under the category of unsubstantiated hearsay. Indeed, phrenological localizations are yet to undergo or double-blinded verifications, which, in fact, is the reason for its ultimate rejection (Fowler & Fowler, 2006). Indeed, subsequent neuroscience has underlined the false nature of phrenology as scientists could not replicate the claims on which it was founded.

References

Hayes, N. (2005). Foundations of psychology. London: Thomson learning.

Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W., & Paradiso, M. A. (2001). Neuroscience: Exploring the brain. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Fowler, O.S & Fowler, L.N (2006). Phrenology Proved, Illustrated And Applied. New York: Kessinger Publishing