> In fact, researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull. (They are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans with about 80% accuracy, using only two variables.)
That is the only mention of the word "skull" in the entire article. They link to an article from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology to support this claim. What is the problem with citing peer reviewed research to back a statement about empirical fact?
I'm using the word pejoratively, but I was specifically referring to the handwavey discussion of skull measurement as a synecdoche for the whole article.
Quillette is a very thinly disguised far right publication, and mainstreaming BS theories of 'race science' is an incremental project that has historically turned out badly. Here's a more detailed treatment of the article's flaws, including the commentary of someone whose scientific work is cited in the article. https://uncommongroundmedia.com/quillettes-attempt-legitimis...
You can argue with the merits of their arguments, but that article is not an example of "peddling debunked concepts like phrenology" (or whatever your original claim was, I can't get the exact text at this point).
And their discussion about skull measurement was not handwavey. It made one very specific assertion and provided some evidence. Again, they may be wrong, but your description of what happens in that article is not an accurate representation of reality.
> In fact, researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull. (They are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans with about 80% accuracy, using only two variables.)
That is the only mention of the word "skull" in the entire article. They link to an article from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology to support this claim. What is the problem with citing peer reviewed research to back a statement about empirical fact?