Piltdown
1.
In 1912, Charles Dawson was digging in a gravel pit in the town of
Piltdown. He found a piece of an ancient human skull. He then invited Arthur
Woodward and Father Pierre. Dawson later dug up another bone, this time a
jawbone that was part of the same skull. In December of 1912, Woodward made the
first public announcement on what could be the connection between humans and
apes. It was dubbed as the Piltdown man. Soon, more fossils were discovered in
Asia and Africa. These fossils were younger than the Piltdown man yet less
human. After World War II, new technology arose, and the Piltdown man was
tested. The results showed the fossils were young. Scientists begun questioning
and became skeptical of the Piltdown man. Then in 1953, the first full-scale
analysis with better dating methods proved the staining on Piltdown man’s bones
were superficial and the teeth had been filed down. It was also discovered that
the jawbone dated back less than 100 years and in fact came from a female
orangutan. Piltdown man was then identified as a hoax. Scientists have since
been alert to the possibility of fakes and unverified sources.
2. Scientists are curious,
creative and persistent by nature, but they are also human. Humans have their
faults and they came to play in this scenario. These faults negatively impacted
the scientific process. These faults included the blind following or herd
mentality of an interesting discovery with no hard evidence. This lead to being
vulnerable and open to lies, cheats and deception.
3. The evolution of technology positively influenced the scientific
process. The advancements were capable of testing different fossils and data
them more accurately. Starting with the fluorine test, it determined the amount
of time an object has been underground. This method gave a rough estimate. Then
the full-scale analysis came along, it identified through microscopes and other
tools that stains on the Piltdown skull were superficial and the teeth on the
jawbone were filed down.
4. It is possible to
remove the “human” factor from science when it comes to analyzing fossils or
ancient artifacts. Technology is rapidly continuing to advance by the day so
there would be no need for the “human” factor. This would drastically lower the
chances of errors like the Piltdown hoax to happen again. I believe the “human”
factor should only supervise the technology during its analyzing process.
5. The lesson one can take
from this historical event is to never believe serious unverified information. Any
serious information should be researched and verified before proceeding.
In general, good information in your synopsis, though I would have preferred more background on how and what was presented to the scientific community and how they responded.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to significance:
"Woodward made the first public announcement on what could be the connection between humans and apes."
Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time. The assignment module provides background information that explains the problem with this concept. Make sure you take the time to review this.
So the issue of significance remains. Yes, this was significant because it was the first hominid found on English soil, but there was also *scientific* significance. Had Piltdown been valid, it would have helped us better understand *how* humans (not *if*) evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. Piltdown was characterized by large cranium combined with other more primitive, non-human traits, suggesting that the larger brains evolved relatively early in hominid evolutionary process. We now know this to be incorrect, that bipedalism evolved much earlier with larger brains evolving later, but Piltdown suggested that the "larger brains" theory, supported by Arthur Keith (one of the Piltdown scientists) was accurate.
What faults, specifically, let the culprits to create this hoax? You reference these faults but don't identify them. Ambition? Greed?
" These faults included the blind following or herd mentality of an interesting discovery with no hard evidence"
I do see what you are referencing in the scientific community, but I need to push back that this was what was happening. Scientists can gain prestige by shooting down the claims of another scientist, so there is no incentive to accept a conclusion without question... in fact, it is the JOB of a scientist to question, so beyond incentive, scientists actually failed to do their job properly when they accepted Piltdown with so little skepticism. This needs to be explored. So why did the scientists fail to do their jobs? Remember that Germany and France had already found their own hominid fossils. This would have been England's first. Would you like to be the British scientist that killed England's chance to be on the hominid map? Could national pride have played a role here?
Good discussion of the technology used to uncover the hoax, but what made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent?
"It is possible to remove the “human” factor from science when it comes to analyzing fossils or ancient artifacts."
Really? Think about what humans contribute to the process of science. Is it all negative? Could we even do science without the curiosity in humans that push them to ask those initial questions? Or their ingenuity to create tests of their hypotheses? Or the intuition that helps them draw connections and conclusions from disparate pieces of information? No machine can do that.
Good life lesson.