week 4 Piltdown Hoax
In Sussex, England Charles Dawson claimed to find a portion of a skull in a small village called Piltdown on December 18, 1912. This finding automatically created an uprising in the scientific community because Dawson believed he had discovered something that had been missing between ape and man.
Later on, scientists looked at the fossil more in depth, they found that the canine tooth had been filed down and pieces such as the front jaw were broken off. Scientists found that a big part of being able to identify the difference of apes and humans was from the front jaw. Due to the fact that the jaw was not present they became vulnerable and went with the first statement that had been told. In 1996, Martin Hitten was found with some of the broken pieces from the skull. It is not guaranteed that Hitten was hiding them for Dawson but that is what most believe. A positive for the science community that came from the hoax was more insight on fossils and better technology to be able to identify fossils. Faults such as excitement of a new discovery could have blinded the scientists because it would have been a great step forward in the science department. The scientists could've also been blinded by greed knowing that this discovery would put them ahead for bigger and better things.
Removing the "human" factor from science would not reduce the chance of errors because being able to have different opinions and ideas can help the discovery of new things. In order to keep the "human" factor relevant and avoid making this mistake again scientist would have to look more into what is being put in front of them. A life lesson that I took from the Piltdown Hoax would be to never take what is being put in front of you without doing more research. You should take your own path and trust your gut rather than another persons because the first answer isn't always the right one.
Later on, scientists looked at the fossil more in depth, they found that the canine tooth had been filed down and pieces such as the front jaw were broken off. Scientists found that a big part of being able to identify the difference of apes and humans was from the front jaw. Due to the fact that the jaw was not present they became vulnerable and went with the first statement that had been told. In 1996, Martin Hitten was found with some of the broken pieces from the skull. It is not guaranteed that Hitten was hiding them for Dawson but that is what most believe. A positive for the science community that came from the hoax was more insight on fossils and better technology to be able to identify fossils. Faults such as excitement of a new discovery could have blinded the scientists because it would have been a great step forward in the science department. The scientists could've also been blinded by greed knowing that this discovery would put them ahead for bigger and better things.
Removing the "human" factor from science would not reduce the chance of errors because being able to have different opinions and ideas can help the discovery of new things. In order to keep the "human" factor relevant and avoid making this mistake again scientist would have to look more into what is being put in front of them. A life lesson that I took from the Piltdown Hoax would be to never take what is being put in front of you without doing more research. You should take your own path and trust your gut rather than another persons because the first answer isn't always the right one.
It is helpful if you organize your post as per the guidelines, with each prompt represented by a new paragraph. That will help me locate your answers and make sure you get the credit you have earned.
ReplyDeleteYou have good detail on the discovery of Piltdown, but let's clarify the issue of significance:
"Dawson believed he had discovered something that had been missing between ape and man."
IThis is just another way of saying "missing link". It isn't just the words that are the problem but the meaning behind them which fails to reflect how evolution actually works. The assignment module provides background information that explains the problem with this concept. Make sure you take the time to review this.
Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time.
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.
Is "excitement" a human fault? Or just an emotion? We are trying to understand what drove the culprits to create the hoax and the scientific community to fail to challenge Piltdown. You may be on the right track with regard to the scientists being driven by "greed". That makes sense 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?
Yes, new technology is a positive aspect that helped to uncover the hoax. Can you describe the technology? Why weren't they able to run these tests when Piltdown was presented? Aside from this, 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?
I agree with your conclusion on the "human factor" and you are on the right track with the issue of opinions and new ideas. So humans bring positive aspects to the process of science, correct? Things like curiosity, ingenuity and intuition, which we would not want to lose from the process? Could we even do science without these positive factors?
Good life lesson.
I totally agree that removing of human factor would not reduce the chance of errors. Everyones opinion matters and who knows what we could learn from someones opinion. Or maybe it'll lead into something else.
ReplyDeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading your post I found it very interesting that you mentioned that new technologies were seen as positive things. Do you think that new scientific technologies are always beneficial in science? I also liked how you mentioned that if we removed the human aspect from science we would improve in accuracy. Overall I really enjoyed your post.