颅相学额窦问题:不可逾越的障碍?

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Journal of the History of the Neurosciences Pub Date : 2022-04-12 DOI:10.1080/0964704X.2022.2046440
S. Finger, P. Eling
{"title":"颅相学额窦问题:不可逾越的障碍?","authors":"S. Finger, P. Eling","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2046440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Whereas some of Gall’s critics were quick to assail his organology as materialistic and fatalistic, others questioned his methods and scientific assumptions, especially his craniological tenets. The idea that the skull does not faithfully reflect the features of small, underlying brain areas was repeatedly brought up in the scientific debates. Critics pointed to the frontal sinuses above the eye orbits as evidence for the interior and exterior plates of the cranium not being in parallel—hence, for several or many phrenological organs being unknowable. This article traces the origins of the frontal sinus arguments and how Gall, Spurzheim, and later phrenologists responded to it. It reveals how the two sides fought and remained divided about the significance of the sinuses throughout the nineteenth century—that is, on whether the frontal sinus “problem” was an insurmountable obstacle or one that was merely an inconvenience.","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"31 1","pages":"524 - 557"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phrenology’s frontal sinus problem: An insurmountable obstruction?\",\"authors\":\"S. Finger, P. Eling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2046440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Whereas some of Gall’s critics were quick to assail his organology as materialistic and fatalistic, others questioned his methods and scientific assumptions, especially his craniological tenets. The idea that the skull does not faithfully reflect the features of small, underlying brain areas was repeatedly brought up in the scientific debates. Critics pointed to the frontal sinuses above the eye orbits as evidence for the interior and exterior plates of the cranium not being in parallel—hence, for several or many phrenological organs being unknowable. This article traces the origins of the frontal sinus arguments and how Gall, Spurzheim, and later phrenologists responded to it. It reveals how the two sides fought and remained divided about the significance of the sinuses throughout the nineteenth century—that is, on whether the frontal sinus “problem” was an insurmountable obstacle or one that was merely an inconvenience.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"524 - 557\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2046440\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2046440","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管高尔的一些批评者很快抨击他的器官学是唯物主义和宿命论,但其他人质疑他的方法和科学假设,特别是他的颅骨学原则。头骨不能忠实地反映小的、潜在的大脑区域的特征,这一观点在科学辩论中被反复提出。批评者指出,眼窝上方的额窦是头盖骨内外板不平行的证据——因此,有几个或许多颅相学器官是不可知的。这篇文章追溯了额窦争论的起源,以及Gall、Spurzheim和后来的颅相学家是如何回应的。它揭示了在整个19世纪,关于鼻窦的重要性,双方是如何斗争和保持分歧的——也就是说,关于额窦的“问题”是一个不可逾越的障碍还是一个仅仅是不方便的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Phrenology’s frontal sinus problem: An insurmountable obstruction?
ABSTRACT Whereas some of Gall’s critics were quick to assail his organology as materialistic and fatalistic, others questioned his methods and scientific assumptions, especially his craniological tenets. The idea that the skull does not faithfully reflect the features of small, underlying brain areas was repeatedly brought up in the scientific debates. Critics pointed to the frontal sinuses above the eye orbits as evidence for the interior and exterior plates of the cranium not being in parallel—hence, for several or many phrenological organs being unknowable. This article traces the origins of the frontal sinus arguments and how Gall, Spurzheim, and later phrenologists responded to it. It reveals how the two sides fought and remained divided about the significance of the sinuses throughout the nineteenth century—that is, on whether the frontal sinus “problem” was an insurmountable obstacle or one that was merely an inconvenience.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.
期刊最新文献
Male hysteria in theory and practice: Analyzing patient records of the Tartu Psychiatric Hospital (Estonia), 1881-1895. Charcot's interest in faith healing. António Egas Moniz: From pioneering brain imaging to controversial psychosurgery. A 150th birthday celebration. The concept of the Schwann cell by Louis Ranvier and his school: The 'interannular segment' as a cell unit. The trial of David Ferrier, November 1881: Context, proceedings, and aftermath.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1