Phrenology was deduced by a German scientist, Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828). The phrenology composition was based on the mind-skull-brain hypothesis that highlighted Gall could have access to an individual’s strengths and weakness by analyzing the cranial bumps and anxiety (Finger, 2019). This hypothesis gained a lot of popularity in the 20th century, but time and resources under the scientific research discredited. One reason was that the interpretation mistakenly established that the cranium was operationally linked to the underlying brain sections (Finger, 2019).
Neuroscience is known for its long and evolved standards, especially from the periods of phrenology. It is through the practice that the study has changed, and so has the techniques used in mapping out the functionality of the brain, for example, during the periods of phrenology, the lumps on the exterior sections of the skull were used in analyzing the strength and size of the brain section and their operational functions (Godman, 2015). Presently, neuroscience relies on neuroimaging technologies that provide the provisions of analyzing the living brain, outlining its anatomic structure and monitors the connection between all sections of the mind through visual approaches (Goldman, 2015). Some of the visual neuroimaging techniques include diffuse optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetoencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan and positron emission tomography, among others.
Some of the flaws that led to the scientific discrediting of phrenology was the fact that the hypothesis misled the entire study; thus, making it possible for different experimental approaches to deduce better methods to study the brain, Some of these beliefs included the absurd perception that their strengths and weaknesses can measure the homogenous brain unity; the cerebral organ being topographically localized; and the relative size of the specified organs.