“This article requires a Controversy section. I came here looking for it. Surpri

–“This article requires a Controversy section. I came here looking for it. Surprised it wasn’t included. Particularly in reference to pseudoscience in the social sciences, and on Boas as one of the most influential pseudoscientists produced by the Cosmopolitan movement. And I’m kind of surprised at the ‘heaping of unworthy praise’, and the total abandonment of the NPOV in the article. We all love our heroes, but many of our heroes turn out to be largely wrong. Marx, Freud, Boas, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard and Gould were wrong – and the consequences will be the subject of study for centuries, just as Hayek had suggested (“…the century of mysticism”) . That doesn’t mean Boas didn’t positively influence culture, but it doesn’t forgive the fact that despite his claims of empiricism, he was engaging in not just bad science, but pseudoscience (and there is a difference). And it’s only been since the beginning of the Pinker era that he’s been incrementally corrected, and at this point largely discredited. Darwin, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim each with their flaws, but producing better work. Now, I am perhaps part of a new generation of thinkers, and I am perhaps more sensitive to pseudoscience because debunking it and preventing it is one of my areas of research, but facts are facts, history is history, and Boas requires a Controversy section.”—