How credible do you consider Carleton S. Coon?

[Mingle]

Most people here seem to treat his work as if its some sort of infallible truth, and there a few that say his work has heavy flaws. Regardless, he is by far the most well known anthropologist on anthrofora, so I thought I'd ask what your opinions of him are. He probably knew what he was talking about in most cases, but he's still just a human with his own flaws. Also, there were other anthropologists besides him with different opinions. So how credible would you say Coon is? I've opened poll regarding how you would rate him with 10 being the most credible and 1 being the least.

[Columella]

Harvard professor and agent during the war.
Chapeau. Troe 1939 obviously is a bit dated (The whole Bruenn/UP theory etc) and misleading and debatable but it’s a good work with lots of data.
Later he simplified a lot, later Coon should be followed more than 1939.
9.

[Silver Lining]

He is the best American anthropologist, but that doesn't say much. He's inferior to v.Eickstedt.

[Brian O'Conner]

A total genius, he debunked Darwin.

[Brian O'Conner]

10/10 credible.

[JosephK]

Perhaps it's due to political correctness and academic censorship, but I am actually a physical anthropologist, and I've barely ever heard of the guy.

[Bosniensis]

As much as any Bosnian anthropologist.

He is a human, not God.

Wonder why people stick to that guy.

[Sacrificed Ram]

I consider physical Anthropology a play, not a true science.

[JosephK]

I consider physical Anthropology a play, not a true science.

What do you consider a "true science"?

[Brian O'Conner]

I consider physical Anthropology a play, not a true science.

It is a true science. Only political correct lefties denyes it. Human pehnotype classifications walk hand in hand with human gentic studyes. Nothing "pseudo-scientific" in it.