Piltdown man goes back to the early 1900's in England, where an archeologist names Charles Dawson dug up what came out to be an ancient skull. The skull was half a jaw and appeared Ape like, however its teeth were flat resembling human teeth. He made this discovery with two other colleagues, Arthur Woodward and Father Pierre. The scientific discovery would have confirmed Darwin's theory of the relationship between Ape and Human, however doubts started emerging when other early human remains were found in other parts of the world. None of the fossils founds resembles a Ape like jaw like Dawson had "discovered"... It led scientist a blind ally making them believe that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted.
In 1939 a paleontologist conducted a fluorine test on the fossil, according to this test bones absorb water and soil, so fossils that would have been in the soil for the same amount of time should have the same amount of fluorine. Since examples of fossils from early humans date back 50,000 years ago and the fossil tested from Dawson being young and only a few 100 years old it threw a huge set back. The fossil was artificially stained and the teeth her manually filled down, and the jaw came from a female Orangoutang.
Dawson did not care for his reputation, they later found out that half a dozen of his findings were forged. Scientist have to keep their integrity and remember that good science depends on objectivity. If they do not they can become vulnerable to lies, cheats, and deceptions.
I do not think it is possible to remove the "human" factor from science, it is in our nature to make mistakes. Even the most strictest, sticklers can have mess-ups and they can learn from it, however at some point in the science process this should not longer occur. Plus without having the human factor some scientist wouldn't go with there gut in the beginning and making amazing discoveries. Piltdown man is a great example of making sure you have your concrete evidence and making sure you don't fall victim of being bias and actually evaluating the evidence. Someone can't go based of something that looks surreal only because of your greed and wanting to be recognized. This hoax is one or the books and anyone can take a lesson from it.
You had great facts an great formatting. Dawson really did not care about his reputation, he just cared about getting famous off of this hoax of a discovery. I agree with you with your thoughts of not removing the human factor from science because it is in our nature to make mistakes and that's just life.
ReplyDeleteNatalie;
ReplyDeleteI also think it's not possible nor should they try to omit the "human factor" because that's what science is about. Mistakes are bound to happen; however, it's up to those who make mistakes to be open-minded and continue to try to resolve the mistake. I believe the greatest lessons are those we mess up on, reflect, learn and adjust.
Yes, this hoax was interesting to watch and learn from. It definitely encourages me to think and ask questions before believing it's true. I would say, don't be afraid to press the issue. I mean, those were a bunch of reputable scientists whom other scientists took their word, only to find out they were mislead and lied to. No one is perfect; therefore, dig deeper to uncover the truth.
April Thomas
Hi Natalie~ I agree with you that you can't really remove the "human factor" from science. There has to be some feeling involved otherwise it would dehumanize science as a whole. Great job!
ReplyDeleteYou have some good detail in your synopsis, and well done highlighting the "large brains" theory, which was supported by Arthur Keith, another Piltdown scientist.
ReplyDeleteSome corrections:
"The scientific discovery would have confirmed Darwin's theory of the relationship between Ape and Human..."
Well, okay, but this is like saying your pencil falling off the table confirms Newton's theory of gravity. Yes, it does, but we are no longer looking to confirm that theory, so this event isn't significant. Likewise with Piltdown, by this time, Darwin's theory wasn't in question, and neither was the fact that humans and non-human apes and other primates were related. 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? You answer this by raising the point of larger brains evolving before other human traits, such as dentition.
Keep in mind that humans ARE apes, so saying something was 'ape-like' doesn't distinguish between a human and a non-human ape.
Good job noting that newer finds were contradicting Piltdown.
I don't see a discussion on the issue of the human faults that led to the perpetuation of this hoax? You mention something about Dawson not caring about his reputation, but that's speculation, as we still don't know for sure who the actual culprit was.
So what faults were involved? Why did the culprits create the hoax? Ambition? Greed? And 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?
You do a very good job of describing the scientific methods and tools used to uncover the hoax, though you didn't include this in a separate section highlighting your response to this question. But what about the process of science itself? Why were scientists still studying this find some 40 years after it was uncovered? What aspect of science does that represent?
"Plus without having the human factor some scientist wouldn't go with there gut in the beginning and making amazing discoveries. "
You are on the right track with this comment. We must not forget that humans do bring positive traits to the process of science, not just negative. How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?
Good life lesson.