The Piltdown Man Hoax
In 1912 near the small New England village of Piltdown, an amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson claimed to had found a piece of an ancient human skull. Leaving the scientific community in an uproar with new evidence of early human ancestry, this new find promised to give paleontologists and archaeologists exactly what they wanted: the missing link. The missing link being the earliest adaptations of man, "the middle" of the evolutionary path between ape to hominin. However, the success didn't last long as several scientists began to question Dawsin's finds, especially since no new finds came after his death. With new technology came new evidence leading to the proof of the hoax. Scientists lab tested the fossils by measuring the fluorine content, thus giving a more precise dating. What they found was crucial, not only was the skull not as old as they had been lead to believe, but all the fossils had been stained and carved using a steel knife. In response to this several scientists began to question the evolutionary theory as a whole as all evidence was called into question. Before this, hypothesis were just believed to be true but after seeing the tampered evidence, scientists were forced to further investigate any new evidence so no mistakes would be made. These human faults affected the scientific process by delaying the progression of new evolutionary theories and evidences. It also put a persons character into play, meaning that scientists couldn't fully be trusted by their evidence unless it was proven legitimate first.
On a more positive note, the scientific processes that revealed the true nature of the skull were tremendous advances in technology. By using various methods to prove the skull was a hoax, science evolved into a more defined craft. For example, during the lab testing of the skull in 1949, scientists used a new method involving fluoride to date the remains. This was a huge impact in technology and led to another testing in 1953 with even more advanced methods that shed light on the stained fragments, and cut skull.
While it is in human nature to have faults in discovering new things, I do not think it would be wise to completely remove the "human" factor from science. Science is all fault and error, it is in this that new discoveries are made. So, at least in my opinion, without human fault, science would not evolve the way it should.
After reading and watching the videos for this event, I found that it is always best to ask questions, and not just agree with something without seeing more evidence first. I think it is important to take everything into question and analyze it before making any assumptions beforehand, especially in the case of new discovery. For example, when Bigfoot was claimed to have been found. Without the evidence, like pictures or video footage, this claim was merely a claim. And while technology is more useful in providing us with evidence, it can always be just as faulty.
On a more positive note, the scientific processes that revealed the true nature of the skull were tremendous advances in technology. By using various methods to prove the skull was a hoax, science evolved into a more defined craft. For example, during the lab testing of the skull in 1949, scientists used a new method involving fluoride to date the remains. This was a huge impact in technology and led to another testing in 1953 with even more advanced methods that shed light on the stained fragments, and cut skull.
While it is in human nature to have faults in discovering new things, I do not think it would be wise to completely remove the "human" factor from science. Science is all fault and error, it is in this that new discoveries are made. So, at least in my opinion, without human fault, science would not evolve the way it should.
After reading and watching the videos for this event, I found that it is always best to ask questions, and not just agree with something without seeing more evidence first. I think it is important to take everything into question and analyze it before making any assumptions beforehand, especially in the case of new discovery. For example, when Bigfoot was claimed to have been found. Without the evidence, like pictures or video footage, this claim was merely a claim. And while technology is more useful in providing us with evidence, it can always be just as faulty.
Okay on your synopsis, but given what you know about the process of evolution, is there such a thing as the "middle" of the evolutionary path between man and non-human apes? Did you get a chance to review the information on the term "missing link" in the assignment folder? Does this term accurately describe what we would have learned from Piltdown? If this had been a valid fossil, what would it have taught us about *how* humans evolved from that common ancestor with modern apes?
ReplyDeleteNo, this hoax did not cause scientists to question evolutionary theory. The theory wasn't the problem here. It caused them to recognize that scientists are human, no more, no less, and that they are subject to human faults like everyone else: Pride, greed and ambition.
Can you explain the test that produced the evidence of the hoax, namely the "fluorine" (not fluoride) analysis? But aside from that, what about the process fo science itself helped ensure that the hoax would eventually be uncovered? Why were scientists still studying this fossil some 40 years after it was unearthed?
I agree with your conclusions with the human factor. I'm not even sure if we could do science without the more positive aspects of human nature, such as curiosity, ingenuity and creativity.
Good life lesson.