Piltdown was an archaeological dig site in England. In 1908 and 1912 human, ape and other mammalian fossil remains were found by Charles Dawson. In 1913 at a nearby dig site they found a canine tooth that was filed down to a humans tooth. British paleoanthropologists came to the conclusion that it came from a single organism. Then in 1953 Piltdown man was considered to be a hoax because the skull was modern and the tooth that was found was from an ape that was filed down. It was proven to be a hoax because of conflicting body evidence and evidence of fraud. The hoax of piltdown man could be argued that it had a sobering effect on the scientific community.
Human faults in Piltdown man was human emotions such as Charles Dawson's ambitions. He was caught up in the moment of this archaeological discovery that some may say he jumped the gun. Immediately he named it the first English man. Scientists were baffled at the fact that the first "English Man" decided to live in England which contradicted with evolution and led scientists astray.
Specific tools that helped in the process of proving that Piltdown man was a hoax is being capable of measuring fluoride within the fossils and this process was introduced around 1949. In 1953 they found out that the skull was about 100 years old and under a microscope they found that the tooth originated from an ape, but it was filed down to make it look like a human tooth. Removal of "human" factors from science is possible, but it wont ensure the safety of permanently removing scandals. As humans we make mistakes, but we eventually learn from them. Removing the human factors from science in my opinion wouldn't make sense because we wouldn't further our explanations of whats true and false.
As for the life lesson goes I would have to say that don't let personal beliefs or pride/patriotism get in the way of work. Piltdown man is a great example because scientist are supposed to neutral, they're not supposed to lean a little to the left nor the right.
I think it's interesting you said Dawson was caught up in the moment when he discovered the fossils and "jumped the gun". It brings up the question of whether or not he actually falsified the fossils. If he didn't, then it is absolutely possible that he was excited by his supposed discovery and ignored the red flags. I don't think Dawson was innocent though, I believe he was the one who planted the fossils. The video said that fossils stopped showing up after he died, which is pretty suspicious in itself.
ReplyDeleteYou've got the basic facts of the hoax, but what was the significance of the find? If it has been valid, what might it have taught us about how humans evolved? And why were British scientists so excited about this find?
ReplyDeleteActually, Piltdown was called the first "Englishman" simply because he was the first hominid to be found in England. This was a big deal to British scientists who had watched Germany and France and other countries claim finds left and right, leaving England in the dust.
Keep in mind that this was indeed a hoax, regardless of the perpetrators. Why was the hoax created? And while some scientists were skeptical, many accepted it rather quickly without much question. Why was this the case? Do they bear some fault for this?
Good description of the technology that was used to uncover the hoax. Besides new technology, what about the process of science itself helped to uncover the hoax? Why were scientists still analyzing this fossil some 40 years after it's discovery?
"Removing the human factors from science in my opinion wouldn't make sense because we wouldn't further our explanations of whats true and false."
I tend to agree with this but it needed further explanation. Why do we need humans for this? Are all aspects of the human factor negative? Or are there positive aspects, too?
Good conclusion.