>>18410297
Common examples of phrenology from back then are unscientific.

There's nothing wrong with some restricted form of phrenology in principle as long as rigorous standards are upheld and accurate measurements are done. Phrenology was a lot of things, so it was very easy to point out the unscientific aspect in order to avoid dealing with anthropologists who were pointing out skull shapes and brain proportions. Anthropologists who rightly made known differences in prefrontal cortex volume were thrown into the same bucket as pseudoscientists because race realism makes academics uncomfortable.

Academia shouldn't concern itself with pseudoscience