Craniology – the practice of inferring intelligence differences from the measurement of human skulls – survived the dismissal of phrenology and remained a widely popular research program until the end of the nineteenth century. From the 1970s, historians and sociologists of science extensively focused on the explicit and implicit socio-cultural biases invalidating the evidence and claims that craniology produced. Building on this literature, I reassess the history of craniological practice from a different but complementary perspective that relies on recent developments in the epistemology of measurement. More precisely, I identify two aspects of the measurement culture of nineteenth-century craniologists that are crucial to understand the lack of validity of craniological inference: their neglect of the problem of coordination for their presupposed quantification of intelligence and their narrow view of calibration. Based on my analysis, I claim that these methodological shortcomings amplified the impact of the socio-cultural biases of craniologists, which had a pervasive role in their evidential use of measurement. Finally, my argument shows how the epistemology of measurement perspective can offer useful tools in debates concerning the use of biological evidence to foster social discourse and for analyzing the relationship between theory, evidence, and measurement.

颅骨学——从测量人类头骨推断智力差异的实践——在颅相学被解雇后幸存下来，直到 19 世纪末仍然是一个广受欢迎的研究项目。从 1970 年代开始，科学史学家和社会学家广泛关注显性和隐性的社会文化偏见，使颅骨学产生的证据和主张无效。在这些文献的基础上，我从一个不同但互补的角度重新评估了颅骨学实践的历史，该角度依赖于测量认识论的最新发展。更准确地说，我确定了 19 世纪颅骨学家测量文化的两个方面，这对于理解颅骨推断缺乏有效性至关重要：他们忽视了协调问题，因为他们对智力的预设量化和他们对校准的狭隘观点。根据我的分析，我声称这些方法学上的缺陷放大了颅骨学家的社会文化偏见的影响，这在他们对测量的证据使用中具有普遍作用。最后，我的论点表明，测量视角的认识论如何在有关使用生物学证据促进社会话语和分析理论、证据和测量之间的关系的辩论中提供有用的工具。这在他们对测量的证据使用中具有普遍的作用。最后，我的论点表明，测量视角的认识论如何在有关使用生物学证据促进社会话语和分析理论、证据和测量之间的关系的辩论中提供有用的工具。这在他们对测量的证据使用中具有普遍的作用。最后，我的论点表明，测量视角的认识论如何在有关使用生物学证据促进社会话语和分析理论、证据和测量之间的关系的辩论中提供有用的工具。