Piltdown Blogpost
The Piltdown Hoax was an anthropological hoax. It was discovered by Charles Dawson between 1910 and 1912. The fossils were found at a place near Lewes, which was in Sussex. The significance of this hoax was that the fossil was known to be the most common ancestor of modern humans, until the fossil was proved to be fraudulent. Back in the 1910s, Dawson found some fossil fragments that made up a human-like skull, also known as the cranium. The discovery was known to be the linking factor between apes and modern humans. But after geologist Dr. Oakley discovered that the fossils were only 50,000 years old using fluorine tests and the discovery of visible scratches on the surface of the teeth, showing that the teeth had been filed down to look like human teeth, the fossil fragments were considered fraudulent and a hoax. When it was first discovered, scientists' opinions all over the world were widely changed. May scientists switched up their theories or bent their previous theories to fit into this new piece of evidence. But after it was discovered that the fossil was a hoax, the science community was shaken. Many people were shocked and surprised to realize not only was the evidence tampered with, but that it had been successfully believed in for a very long time.
One human fault in this hoax must have been that the factors that'd t the classification of the fossils should have been done more carefully. It was said that the scientists at the scene when the fossil was found, it relied on the color and the bone structure of other fossilized animals around the fossil of the cranium to classify it as a linking factor between humans and apes. Another human fault was that there were no deep studies conducted after the discovery of the fossil. Although there were studies made to analyze the structure of the fossil, in the beginning of its founding no scientist bothered to deeply analyze it. If that analyzation was don't before, the hoax would not have been this successful.
I do not think that if we remove the human factor, there would be a lower chance of errors. Humanizer the only ones who can do slow and delicate research on a given topic, and in this such topic humans are the only ones that can work patiently with he fossil. I think technology would have helped in making the fossils more accurate, which would have allowed the scientists to identify mistakes in the earlier stage. I definitely would not want to remove the human factor out of science, because I believe that humans are such a big factor in research. Without humans, we would not have the technology developed to conduct research, so taking out the human factor would be detrimental for science.
The main lesson I took out from this was that to always go through a project, no matter what level of importance it is, with open eyes, because one small mistake or one small detail overlooked or not looked at enough can have devastating effects in the long run. I also learned to be more careful and aware of your surroundings, because you never know when people can change for the worse, ni matter how close you are to them.
A recommendation on your posts: You have a few blank lines at the top of your post, which results in the post appearing to be blank when you first open your blog. Students may just skip over it, thinking it is missing. Fortunately, your instructor was willing to dig a little deeper to find it. ;-)
ReplyDelete"The significance of this hoax was that the fossil was known to be the most common ancestor of modern humans"
When you speak of "most common ancestor", this is a relative term. It means you are looking for the most recently shared ancestor between two different species. In this case, you are just looking at a possible ancestor of modern humans, so only one species is involved. Regardless, Piltdown would have been one branch on the hominid tree, geographically located in England. It was a big deal for England, from this perspective.
But Piltdown, had it been valid, would have had more scientific significance beyond this, informing us as to *how* humans evolved. 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.
"The discovery was known to be the linking factor between apes and modern humans."
Nope. It wasn't old enough to do this. It only helped expand our understanding of modern humans. It made no connection between humans and non-humans apes. This is making the same mistake as using the term "missing link". It's not the words that area problem, it is the meaning behind them. Make sure you review the information on this term in the assignment sub-module.
Regarding your section on "human faults", you are describing an error in the process of science, but not a human "fault". Faults include things like greed or ambition or greed. Instead of thinking about *how* this happened, think about *why* it happened. Why did the perpetrators create this hoax in the first place? 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?
Missing the section on the positive aspects of science? You discuss the technology involved in the synopsis but don't address this issue specifically.
"Without humans, we would not have the technology developed to conduct research, so taking out the human factor would be detrimental for science."
Good discussion on this, and I agree with your conclusions but it goes beyond just technology. It is human curiosity and their passion for inquiry that drives science in the first place. Without humans asking questions and seeking answers, science wouldn't even exist.
Good life lesson.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you in that there should have been more testing before the Piltdown Man became as widely accepted as it was. However, I think the true human error was the pride of Charles Dawson to establish an important artifact and to bring recognition to his country.