Talk:Francis Galton

darwin

I have the Darwin family tree done in PowerPoint. Please post on my talk page to request changes or email me to get a copy of the PowerPoint.Cutler 21:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In my editing on 3 Jun 2005, 17:34, I'm pretty sure I did not inadvertantly take out anything already on the article. I'm sure it's all there, but some things may be disputed.--AI 03:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Histerionics

What does word refer to? Is it a misspelling of "histrionics"? Does it refer to "historiometry"? Would a different word be better? -Willmcw 23:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

cardiogram

Galton did not invent the electrocardiogram as someone claimed. I have removed this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavantredoux (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

South West Africa

The link to "South West Africa" in the "Early life" section links to a page about the territory of that name that existed from 1915-1990 (before becoming Namibia). However, Galton went there in c.1850. I don't know much about the history and I don't know how Galton described the area in his writings, but would it make more sense to remove the link and perhaps use lower case for "south west Africa" (while retaining the mention of present-day Namibia, with link), to make clear that we are simply referring to the area, and not to a political entity which did not yet exist at the time Galton was there? The page on Namibia has some information about the history going back to the 19th century and earlier, so that seems the most useful page to link to.

Galton and Racism

discussion initiated by WP:LOUTSOCK or similar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nothing much is said about Galton's incredible racism. Shouldn't that be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.182.114 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC) It is mention in the opening paragraph ... and a proponent of social Darwinism, eugenics and scientific racism. There is an extensive section on Heredity and eugenics Is there anything we are particularly missing? --Salix alba (talk): 18:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Yes. A proper critical introduction on top of the whole article addressing the toxic nature of this "knight" as a kind of trigger warning to people sensitive to the topic. 79.210.222.209 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Older iterations of this page made better reference to his involvement in eugenics explicitly in the first few words/paragraph. Recent revisions (have for some reason?) decided to make this more obscure, changing "eugenics" to a link to behavioral genetics. A look at older versions of the page will show this wasn't always the case. Very interesting as to why someone would wish to to this. Vidalion (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) I was shocked by the exclusion of eugenics from the opening paragraph and added it, but now I see that this has been a long back-and-forth. For me the issue is historical accuracy, there was no behavioral genetics in 1880 or 1910, the field of science based on Galton's heredity research was called eugenics. While the term eugenics has a stigma for present-day readers due to its association with the Nazi genocide, and they may want to soften it by using a neutral-sounding term, this misrepresents the historical context of Galton's work. NewHarmonia (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Eugenics should be in the lede, racism is a more troubled story. One quote of his: [W]e have to get rid of the common illusion that the axioms of moral conduct, which are or appear to be natural to ourselves, must be those of every other sane and reasonable human being. The very existence of the Anthropological Institute should be construed into a standing protest against such narrowness of view. The world of human mind and instinct is richly variegated, persons even of the same sex and race differing sometimes more widely than ordinary men differ from ordinary women, though of course in other ways, and this amount of difference is indeed large. Foreigners say that we are stiff, and that our naturally narrow powers of sympathy are still further contracted by insular prejudices. Be this as it may, it is certain that the English do not excel in winning the hearts of other nations. They have to broaden their sympathies by the study of mankind as they are, and without prejudice. This is precisely what the Anthropologists of all nations aim at doing, and in consequence they continually succeed in discovering previously unsuspected connections between the present and past forms of society, between the mind of the child and of the man, and between the customs, creeds, and institutions of barbarians and of civilised peoples. Anthropology teaches us to sympathise with other races, and to regard them as kinsmen rather than aliens. In this aspect it may be looked upon as a pursuit of no small political value. As attested by contemporaries: Mr. F. Galton would refer first to the purely ethnological part of the memoir, which dwelt upon the difficulty of defining the Bantu race. He thought that ethnologists were apt to look upon race as something more definite than it really was. He presumed it meant no more than the average of the characteristics of all the persons who were supposed to belong to the race, and this average was continually varying. The popular notion seemed based upon some idea like that of a common descent of the different races, from a parent Noachian stock, whence the aborigines of each county were derived, and where they lived in unchanged conditions till the white man came. Nothing can be further from the truth. We know how in South Africa the Bantu population has been in constant seethe and change; how, in much less than a single century, Chaka and his tribe, Mosilekatse and his tribe, and others, have in turn become prominent nations, and the average of the whole Bantu population must thereby have differed at different times. This same fluctuation of the average qualities of the population must, for anything we can see to the contrary, have gone on for many thousands of years. He therefore thought the phrase of Bantu race, as signifying some invariable and definite type, to be a mere chimera. And he was more concerned with a "future race" so to speak than present ones: [T]hough anthropometry owes an immense debt to Quetelet, we must be careful not to follow his principles and methods blindfold. We must recollect that Quetelet lived in pre-Darwinian times, at a date when the fixity of races was an established scientific belief. His central principle consequently was that the mean man is the perfect man. The theory of evolution now assures us of what common sense never doubted---that this principle is radically wrong. The most desirable man is not the one who is mediocre in his wits, in his honesty, and in his aspirations; or, again, in the proportions of his figure, in his muscular power, and in his ability to endure fatigue. Anthropologists, as a rule, are behindhand in their studies of men of superior types, who rank above the mediocrity of their race in every respect, and are not to be confounded with those who rank above the majority in only a few conspicuous ways, through the sacrifice of other qualities which are no less essential, but of a less showy kind. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)