The Piltdown ‘human’ was found in South East England in the early 1900’s. This piece of fossil was found by a labor who then gave it to Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist. This piece of fossil was thought to be the first human fossil to Darwin’s theory. Dawson then met a geologist, Sir Arthur Woodward and an anatomist, Arthur Keith and Telihard. In February 1912 Dawson published his discoveries and his thought about how it has the evidence of an ape-like jawbone and human-like teeth. This cause the scientific community in uproar. For England this was a great new, for they finally can have a proof that they also have old human-ape-like fossils found in their land. However, in 1949 they tested the fluorine content of the fossil and found out that the age of the fossil is less than 100 years old. They also found an artificial stain and the teeth had been filled on the fossil and in the end they found out that the fossil belonged to a female orangutan whose teeth had been filled so it will look like a human-like teeth. Big suspicion was given to Charles Dawson who was thought wanted to make it to the high class of scientific society. Dawson also found many other fossils with the same artificial stain found in the Piltdown’s fossil. In the end the discovery was just a Hoax. It doesn’t have an any connection between human and ape at all.
The mistake was in how competitive and deceitful England was. They wanted to prove that man’s origins came from Britain by claiming that the fossil could be the oldest human-like fossil. They also wanted to rise up even higher and wanted to use this discovery in their politics tactic too. They probably didn’t even bother to check and analyze the fossil many more times whether if it’s really a fossil that could have been the missing link to Darwin’s theory. In the end England’s mistake and arrogance brought their scientific prestige to an all-time low.
The positive aspect in this situation is that when the modern scientist was able to date the skull and developed a better technique so that they could avoid a fraud. The scientist use fluorine to determine the age of the object by timing the duration of how long the object would absorb the fluorine and chemical that were able to show the artificial stains in the skull and a more advance microscope. They also use the scientific methods to question whether if the skull could really be from and ape-human-like as well.
The human factor in the case of Piltdown Hoax should be able to be removed because at that time advance chemical and advance tests weren’t available for them and the person who conducts the experiments were conducted purely by humans alone. The human factor is much reduced in today’s science because we now have technologies that would do an experiment in the most precise measure and this reduce the error margin in science.
The life lesson from this hoax is that we should check something as important as the discovery of the first human fossil more than just with the same tests. Do all the tests that are necessary to prove that what is being said to be proven right. Also how lies and arrogance should not be involved in science because it clouds judgement. In the end truth always prevails one way or another and science is based on facts.
Wendy, I identified with your last paragraph. although I do not agree with you on the human factor being removed from science, I believe that since the hoax was human made, human had all the advantages at the time to prove it was a hoax which they did, and in modern science the human element is still much needed as there are aspects of conducting experiments such as observations that technology would not be able to perform. I believe humans should use the technology now present to continue making discoveries and also use this technology to keep testing previous finds were doubt still exist.
ReplyDeleteGood Job Wendy,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very well written. You made everything to the point and did not carry on. I agree with your life lesson about how you should check what was stated even if the person was very credible. You can't always trust everyone. I was very interested with what you had to say about the piltdown hoax.
Decent information, but I think you need to proof read more. You have grammar errors and misspelled words, making it hard to follow along smoothly. I see where you are coming from regarding the human factor being removed in the mid-1900's, but I don't think there is a way of 100% removing it. Although they did not have the testing that we have now, people in then were responsible for testing the results, just as people are now.
ReplyDeleteInitial comment: Please change the color of your font. Makes it hard for people with old eyes to read, especially those grading your work. :-)
ReplyDeleteIn general, good content with your synopsis with a couple of clarifications:
"proof that they also have old human-ape-like fossils found in their land"
Make sure you used correct anthropological terminology. In science, you have "evidence" but not "proof". You only have proofs in math! Also, what was presented here was a possible "hominid" fossil.
"...the fossil is less than 100 years old."
It wasn't just the age. The cranium was that old, but the jaw was essentially modern. And while the cranium was human, the jaw was orangutan. So a lot more problems than age.
Finally, I agree that this was significant in part because it was the first "Englishman", i.e., the first fossil hominid found on English soil, but there was also scientific significance to this fossil as well. If the Piltdown fossil had been valid, what would it have taught us about *how* humans evolved? Hint: Why was Woodward so enthusiastic about this fossil?
"The mistake was in how competitive and deceitful England was."
I kind of know what you mean, but it is important to be very precise with your words. We can't lay the blame for this on the entire country of England. But we can lay blame on (a) the perpetrators of this hoax and (b) the scientific community for accepting this fossil find so quickly, without the scrutiny all new finds deserve. What you discuss here seems to apply to the scientific community. What faults might have driven the perpetrators to create the hoax in the first place?
Good description of the technology used to uncover the hoax. What about the process of science itself? What aspects of the scientific process helped to provide evidence that this fossil was a fraud? Why were scientists still studying this fossil some 40 years after it was discovered? You touch on this a little with your reference to the "scientific method", but needed to be more specific.
With regard to your human factor section, do you really think that it would be possible to remove the human factor from the process of science? Think about what that would entail. And do humans only bring negative traits to the process of science? Nothing positive that you wouldn't want to lose? What about the drive to ask the initial questions through our innate curiosity of the world around us? How about the intuition to draw connections between two disparate pieces of information? How about the creative ability to create new technology to solve problems? Could we even do science without these very human traits?
"Do all the tests that are necessary to prove that what is being said to be proven right."
While I agree with your point, how realistic is it for us to run our own tests to check the validity of all new information we receive? We often have to rely upon authority figures to do this work for us (think of medical science... we have to trust doctors to a certain degree as we can't possibly understand everything about medicine, correct?). But we can be careful who we trust, and we can get the input from multiple sources instead of just one. Like I said, I get your point on this and, ideally, you are correct, but unfortunately, that just isn't possible.