Andi claims that phrenology was a pseudoscience rather than a science. The best support for her opinion is the fact that the theory wasn't empirically testable because:
A) when phrenologists found large "stealing" bumps but the person was not a thief, they concluded that other bumps held this characteristic in check.
B) most of the phrenologists received inadequate training in the careful analysis of head bumps and so there was too much variation for accurate prediction.
C) the phrenologists relied heavily on the theories of the British naturalist Charles Darwin, and yet they could not link the bumps to evolutionary adaptation.
D) when "bumps" did not accurately explain a person's characteristics, the phrenologists explained the contradiction by hypothesizing traumatic childhood experiences.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Phrenology was not empirically testable because if phrenologists found large "stealing" bumps but the person was not a thief, they concluded that other bumps held this characteristic in check, rather than questioning the legitimacy of the entire theory. This lack of empirical testing and confirmation is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Andi Claims That Phrenology Was a Pseudoscience Rather Than a Science