You can argue with the merits of their arguments, but that article is not an example of "peddling debunked concepts like phrenology" (or whatever your original

You can argue with the merits of their arguments, but that article is not an example of "peddling debunked concepts like phrenology" (or whatever your original claim was, I can't get the exact text at this point). And their discussion about skull measurement was not handwavey. It made one very specific assertion and provided some evidence. Again, they may be wrong, but your description of what happens in that article is not an accurate representation of reality.