How credible do you consider Carleton S. Coon?

[Damião de Góis]

1/10 credible at least regarding Iberia.

[Mingle]

That is very rational and how I would ideally to precive Coon, but-and I know this may sound like a logical fallacy-many anthropologists made errors that are as least as unreasonable as anything Coon claimed so we have to take that into consideration when rating the quality of Coon‘s work.

Beddoe, who is generally very systematic in his methods once claimed that Sephardic Jews were as rufous as Anglo-Saxons based on a insufficient sample size.

Other false claims of Beddoe such as that that the native Irish are darker eyed than the English are also due to flawed methods.

The list could go on and on if I go through every flaw that every Anthropologist of the 19th century tradition ever made.

So in order to rate the credibility of past anthropologists such as Coon we have to ask who‘s work was the least flawed.
Another

I would say to just rate Coon as an anthropologist based on his anthropological findings rather than based on how good he is compared to others. Based on your vote, I guess that's pretty much what you did.

[Dick]

Yeah, OK that's what I meant--- an internet forum on anthropology obviously isn't science, but the scientific field of physical anthropology is quite real and legit!

Forensic anthropology teaches you how to determine if a skull is caucasoid, negroid or mongoloid but what if the person was mixed?

[JosephK]

Forensic anthropology teaches you how to determine if a skull is caucasoid, negroid or mongoloid but what if the person was mixed?

You can usually tell if it's mixed, but you'd describe it however you could... and they generally fall into one of the three categories anyway. There's software and statistics that will categorize it, too...

[StonyArabia]

I think it's pesudoscience and also many of his theories have been genetically false

[Ripuarian]

I would say to just rate Coon as an anthropologist based on his anthropological findings rather than based on how good he is compared to others. Based on your vote, I guess that's pretty much what you did.

If I rated based on his Anthropological findings alone irrespective of others the rating would be even lower than a 6/10. It would probably be a 4/10.

[Mingle]

If I rated based on his Anthropological findings alone irrespective of others the rating would be even lower than a 6/10. It would probably be a 4/10.

Interesting. I'm aware he's got his mistakes, but based on how much anthrotards worship him, I wouldn't have expected him to be that low. So why only a 4/10?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Cosmo Zero]

he's field of research and work was limited by his era (technically speaking).

but nevertheless coon was a brilliant anthropologist and in many aspects he was way ahead of his time.

[Ripuarian]

Interesting. I'm aware he's got his mistakes, but based on how much anthrotards worship him, I wouldn't have expected him to be that low. So why only a 4/10?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

For his reference value I would rate The Races of Europe much higher. It is just some executional elements.

I can not critzize him on his reference value, but om how he picked up some elements of Ripley‘s previous work.

I feel that Coon‘s the Races of Europe is an improvement over Ripley‘s the Races of Europe, but when your modeling your work from a previous work with great inaccurices (which is understable considering it was not written by a Professional only interested raising funds for the education of his children) there is a limit to how much your results can go.

You can’t have a professional product without an equally professional model no matter how skilled the individuals involved are and the Races of Europe exemplifies this.

If Coons Races of Europe was never written I‘m sure many Enthusiasts would just as soon cling to the 1899 Ripley Races of Europe just as strongly as they do know to Coon‘s later version.

With Coons other work the Ripley issue does not apply, but I did not consider that in my rating as The Races of Europe is what he is known for today.

The oringal Races of Europe was based around profit not accuracy or rigor and the implication of that are the main issue I have with the work.

My criticism of Coon is not so much out of him as it is an extension of others, namely Ripley.

[Veslan]

7/10 he had a rather biased Mediterraneanist view.