1. The Piltdown Hoax was founded in the 1900's by Barkham Manor in the village of Piltdown that is southeast of England. He found a piece of skull while digging and he gave it to the local anthropologist, Charles Dawson. After research Dawson concluded that the skull was too thick to be from a human so it was from a primate. This lead him to do more research so he joined with Arthur Woodward and Father Teilhard. This research became to be the evidence of the theories of Charles Darwin. However once technology advanced the skull was retested for the fluorine test. And the test concluded that the age was much younger than claimed and their were artificial cuts on it. Eventually it was stated that the skull came from a female orangutan.
2. The human faults of this incident is ambition and lying. If it was not for the success that they wanted they would have never lied about the evidence they found. The scars founded on the skull was a shocking and embarrassing for the archaeologist.
3. The positive effects of the Piltdown Hoax is that the science community became more strict on the evidence and theory that scientist created. It also allowed them to test hypothesis and evidence to make sure the ideas were honest and valid.
4. I do not think it is possible to remove the human factor from science because due to human passion there are theories created from spectacular minds. Due to human's error making it is possible that there are many scientist eager to find the unanswered questions of nature.
5. What i learned from this historical event is that ambitious can make you blind and make errors that can have bigger effects on your reputation.
You start off right in your synopsis but then get drawn into misconceptions, so let's work on clarifying some key points:
ReplyDeleteThe skull pieces actually resembled modern humans, except that it was slightly smaller then normal. It was the jaw that was unlike modern humans and more like a modern chimpanzee. It was this combination of human and non-human ape traits that led to the suggestion that this was a hominid skull of some kind, a branch in the human primate family tree.
The significance of this fossil find was not that it supported Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin had presented his theory more than 50 years earlier and it was generally accepted by this time. It was no longer an issue of IF humans evolved, but HOW they evolved. So what would Piltdown have taught us about HOW humans evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes? Given the size of the brain case, it seemed to support the theory that larger brains evolved earlier than other human traits (like dentition and bipedalism). That is the significance of this find, had it been valid.
The testing that provide conclusive evidence of the hoax also suggested that the jaw (not the skull) was actually from an orangutan. The skull was human from the medieval time period.
I agree with your suggesting that ambition is a likely fault the may have lead to the perpetrators creating this hoax. Lying is not so much fault as an action taken as a result of ambition (or greed), but point taken. But was the fault only on the side of the perpetrator(s)? What about the scientific community? Why did they accept this fossil so readily, with so little of the necessary skepticism and analysis? Why didn't they do their jobs? This question is particularly pertinent for the British scientists. What incentive might they have had to accept Piltdown with few questions asked?
Yes, the scientific community became more aware of and sensitive to the possibility of hoaxes, and the application of the scientific method became more stringent. The method itself didn't change, just the rigor with with it was applied. But the question actually asked what positive aspects of the process of science helped to uncover the hoax, not the benefits of the hoax in the aftermath. One positive aspect is the new technology, with constant improvements making it possible to test where it wasn't possible before. You mention this earlier in the form of the fluorine testing. But beyond the new technology and techniques, what aspects of the process of science itself helped to uncover this hoax? Why were scientists still analyzing this fossil find some 40 years after it was discovered? What aspect of science does this represent?
I agree with your conclusions regarding the human factor.
Good life lesson.
Hey Diana,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to start out by saying I fully agree with you about not being able to take the human part out of science. I thought the same thing about humans having the passion to find the answers and it was an interesting point to make that due to human errors it gives other scientists encouragement to find the right answer. I also liked your life lesson about how ambition could make you blind, I thought that was very true.
Emily