Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum discovered to what is known as the Piltdown Man. The Piltdown Man was the skull like fragments and a jaw with two teeth that they found in the Piltdown gravel pit in Sussex, England. They believed that these bones can represent some sort of ancestor that lived 500,000-1 million years ago. They announced these findings on December 18, 1912 at a meeting of the U.K.'s geological society. This was a huge discovery for scientists, because not only is it known that humans have ancestors from a million years ago, but they actually have remains in front of them that can be considered as evidence and use it to learn more about our ancestors. Dawson and Woodward were amateur archaeologists when they discovered the remains. By finding the Piltdown man, it really raised the bar of status with Woodward and Dawson- being they found evidence that everyone can learn from and supplied the "missing link" from the relation between ape and man.
The human faults that came into play within this scenario is that they jumped the gun too quick when finalizing what the remains really are. As if they got too excited of the situation, they announced the findings before even studying the remains thoroughly.
What revealed the skull to be a fraud was closer examinations. Some scientists found that the jaw of the Piltdown Man originated from two different species- human and ape. A microscope showed that the teeth from the jaw was filed down to make it look like human teeth and many other pieces of the remains have seem to be manipulated. Through a microscope, it was also found that some of the remains were stained to look like they were that old.
The "human" factor of science will always be there. Even though scientists discover great findings and make themselves to what seems is as close to god himself, they will forever have the possibility of making mistakes when it comes to findings- scientists cannot run from the fact that they are human. If I could remove this factor completely from science, then I would. I feel like we could exert ourselves even more without feeling the doubt of findings, and without jumping the gun.
Life Lesson: Don't brag about anything unless you know for certain it is true.
Hey Kirsten,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the "human" factor of science will always be there. However, if we were to get rid of it completely who would do the science? Do you think robots or AIs would? I feel if we had robots doing the science for us then we wouldn't think as much.
Your synopsis ends too early! :-) How and when was the hoax discovered? This should have been part of the tale you told your readers.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to significance, it certainly was valuable to have another fossil hominid available to scientists, but "significance" goes beyond just another sample specimen. The question here is, what would this have taught us about how humans evolved? I note that you stray at the end by mentioning "missing link"... Note that in the guidelines, it was explained that this is NOT the significance of this discovery and there are links in the assignment module that explain this. Make sure you take 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.
"... they jumped the gun too quick when finalizing what the remains really are."
Yes, but shouldn't this have been caught by the scientific community? Why didn't other scientists bother to confirm what was presented to them and conclusions drawn? What fault is involved here?
Also, you seem to be assuming that Dawson, et.al., were not involved in the creation of the hoax in the first place, which is fine as we still aren't sure, but someone DID create the hoax. Why? What faults are involved here?
"What revealed the skull to be a fraud was closer examinations."
Agreed, but that again begs the question of why the scientific community didn't do this in the first place.
What about the fluorine analysis, which ultimately provided the evidence of the hoax? And aside from the new techniques, 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?
"...make themselves to what seems is as close to god himself..."
I'm perplexed by this sentence.
Aside from that, you seem to be assuming all factors are negative. Is that the case? Do humans bring nothing positive to the scientific process? How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?
With regard to your life lesson, you are still focusing on this event from the perspective of a duped scientist presenting untested conclusions, which is fine, but what can you take from the perspective of the scientific community in general, as it could be applied to your own life? Should you readily accept what you hear from others without skepticism or critical thought? How do you figure out what is true or not true? Let's explore this a little more deeply.
I like you're take away in the life lesson section, jumping the gun can often have poor consequences. The hoax does also bring up another lesson; the importance of double checking facts.
ReplyDelete