Piltdown Blog Post
The
Piltdown Hoax took place in Piltdown England, in 1912. An amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson
said he found fossilized bones of a very old human. He claimed they were the
missing link between humans and apes. I believe the scientific significance at
the time was that they found the oldest human remains ever and that it caused
more questions than gave answers. It also was believed to be somewhat true,
although skeptical, for so long. In 1953
the bones were proved to be an elaborate hoax using bone staining, and filing
of the teeth of an Orangutan and Skull of a Humanoid Fossil skull. Scientists
of the era secretly questioned the validity of the find, but Dawson kept “finding”
more fossils at the site. After his death, no more fossils were ever found,
leading to the scientific community to question harder and begin testing the
finds.
Scientists
are human, and so human nature can kick in for the most deceptive of
traits. In the Piltdown Hoax, it seems
you had an eager and ambitious man in Dawson, and Arthur Smith Woodward a
scientist who wanted to prove a previous theory of his own on brain size, and
figured this was the facts to back up his theory. So ambition and a thirst for
validation fueled an elaborate hoax that baffled the scientific community for years.
Utilizing
microscopic examination, the teeth were discovered to have been filed down to
expose them as fraudulent. In 1949 the
Fluorine Absorption test was available and used on the Piltdown fossils. The
test revealed that he fossils were modern and not an ancient humanoid. The way
that Fluorine testing works is that bones as they fossilize in the ground, will
absorb fluoride from underground water.
The longer the bones are underground, the more fluoride they absorb and
a date can be estimated from this amount.
I don’t
believe you can remove the human factor from science. Even if you created
robots to do all the digging, and testing of fossils, as in this case, you
still have humans programming the robots that are doing the job. I don’t think
you can program conscience so I wouldn’t want to remove the human aspect from
science. Eventually the truth is revealed, and those that are trying to mislead
science will be found out.
I think
when it comes to the scientific process, you need to have multiple sources for a
checks and balances system. You can’t take any one person’s word for it unfortunately.
I really enjoyed post and loved that you added pictures. I also agree with you that you can't remove the human factor from science. I liked how you brought up the robot example because it truly shows that no matter what the scientific world does there will always be human error and all we can do is learn from the mistakes made in the past.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post. The pictures throughout the post were a really good idea because it provides the reader with more insight and visual representation. I agree with you that we can't remove human error and your ideas were very similar to mine. Even if it is technology, somehow humans are involved.
ReplyDeleteJustin I thoroughly enjoyed your post, the information spread out between the pictures made it very interesting. I also really enjoyed the examples you have for taking humans out of science and how those really wouldn't be adequate in furthering scientific discoveries. You had some excellent ideas, including having a checks and balances to help keep misinformation under control.
ReplyDeleteReview on your synopsis:
ReplyDeleteSome good detail, but you end on Dawson's death and don't finish the story. What happened after Dawson's death? How was the hoax uncovered and by whom? How long did it take for this to happen?
A couple of other issues: First of all, the guidelines explicitly state that the term "missing link" could not be used in this post and there is background information in the assignment module that explain why. Take some time to review those items to understand the problems with this term.
With regard to significance, it is important that this fossil was the first to be found on English soil, but what was the *scientific* significance of this fossil (had it been valid)? What would it have taught us about how humans evolved from that common ape ancestor? As explained above, "missing link" is not a valid explanation of significance, as there really is no such thing given how evolution actually works. By this time, Dthe fact that humans and non-human apes and other primates were related wasn't in question. It wasn't about "if" they were genetically related, but *how* humans had evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. So what would this discovery have taught us about "how" humans evolved? Why was the size of the Piltdown cranium relative to the comparatively "primitive" nature of the Piltdown jaw? Hint: Why was Arthur Keith so excite by this fossil?
I agree with your discussion of human faults, but other than the culprits, can you find fault with anyone else? How about the scientific community? Why did they accept this find so readily without proper scrutiny? What might have inspired them (particularly the British scientists) to not do their jobs properly when it came to this particular fossil?
Good job explaining the process that uncovered the hoax. But why were scientists still studying this find some 40 years after it was uncovered? What aspect of science does that represent?
Good discussion on the human factor, but I suggest the positive contributions of humans go beyond a "conscience". How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?
And we have that system of checks and balances in the process of science, correct? We just need to follow it reliably. Good life lesson.
I appreciate the images, but I'm curious about the last image? The term "evolutionists" is a derogatory term only used by critics of evolutionary theory, usually from creationists. Do you really think this accurately represents scientists? Could it instead be applied to those who choose to ignore what science factually articulates? It was a curious choice.