The Piltdown Hoax
The Piltdown Hoax was an event that made scientists and paleontologists more aware of new information that is presented to them. Although the scientific method has been around for some time its important to know that technology has a big part to play in finding out not only new but accurate information. This new technology was the reason that the Piltdown Hoax was exactly that, a Hoax. In 1912 in the city of Piltdown a man was excavating in a gravel pit and discovered what was presumed ancient fossils. This amateur archeologist was named Charles Dawson. He and a well renown geologist named Arthur Smith Woodward had come upon a human skull and later part of a jaw bone. He claimed it would be the piece of evidence we needed in order to prove that humans did come from apes.
At that point in time there was again very little technological advances so how would one be able to prove or disprove that these fossils indeed were accurate to what Dawson stated? The answer is, there was no way. In those days people looked up to scientists they had a sort of certification or authority and no one questioned a thing. It wasn't until after World War II that the technology got more advanced. They used the florine deposits left on fossils and could roughly determine their time frame. This allowed scientists to find discrepancies in Dawsons discovery. They soon found that the fossils were from a very recent time, various superficial and manmade markings, and most importantly the jaw bone was missing pieces that would have indicated that it was not part of the skull at all.
It is imperative that we continue to improve our technology so that we can keep catching errors like this when they arise again. As humans we tend to make errors and some of us let the power go to our head wanting to become the next big thing or next talked about item but we must remain honest. We can always go back to the scientific method if our technology runs down or breaks but we must always keep respect for the truth. You can try to fool the world but the world will always prove the truth.
Hey C.Dominguez, thanks for sharing the post. I agree that continuous improvement is imperative not only in science, but just about anything we do. It was a shame how this discovery was presented and pushed through the science community for so many years. But it did serve a purpose. Now, people are more vigilante and prone to challenge and research findings that have little to no verifiable origin.
ReplyDeleteYou bring some important points to your post! One of the statements you made, though, that no one questioned Dawson's claim, is not necessarily true for every person of this time. There were quite a few scientists who were skeptical of the findings and claims associated, but could not test the claims or analyze the findings due to restricted access to Dawson's findings. However, it is true that many people did jump to conclusions without hard evidence and further proof. From this hoax, much of the scientific community, as well as the public, has learned to not conclude anything until fully proven.
ReplyDeleteJust a formatting point: There were five key prompts in the guidelines. It would be to your advantage to separate your post into a paragraph for each prompt so that your reader can better follow how you address each point. You have plenty of space available. No need to cram it all in.
ReplyDeleteI've just read through your post and I'm even more puzzled. There are specific questions in the prompts and your post here doesn't use any of the key words from those questions, giving the impression that you didn't review the guidelines? I'll explain this issue as I review:
1. This asked for a synopsis of the hoax, outlining key events and explaining the significance of this fossil discovery had it been valid. Your entire post is really the synopsis (which is partly what makes me wonder if you reviewed the guidelines). You have good information, but you leave out the point on the significance. What would this fossil have taught us about human evolution, had it been valid? 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.
2. What human faults were involved in the creation and perpetuation of this hoax? The idea is to look at the people (person) who created this hoax and ask what drove them to do so, but also to ask why the scientific community seemed to give Dawson, et. al., a "pass" on scrutiny when Piltdown was presented to them. I don't see this discussion here.
3. What were the positive aspects of the process of science that helped to uncover the hoax? You have quite a bit on this, exploring explaining the technical processes that were used to produce evidence of this hoax.
There is one question that remains, however. Scientists won't return and reinvestigate unless they have reason to do so. So what drove scientists to re-test Piltdown? You hint at this with this comment:
"This allowed scientists to find discrepancies in Dawsons discovery."
Actually, the "discrepancies" were discovered when other fossil discoveries were made after Piltdown and they were younger than Piltdown and possess a much more "primitive" (i.e., smaller) cranium). This contradicted Piltdown, and when enough supported this contradiction, the fossil was re-examined. This is what instigated and finally led to the discovery of the hoax.
4. The human factor contributed to the creation and perpetuation of this hoax. Can we eliminate the human factor from science? Would we want to? You talk about the "errors" made by humans in the process of science, but you don't answer the questions raised in the prompt.
5. Identify a "life lesson" you could apply to your daily life that you have learned from this event. You kind of touch on this in the last section, but you don't seem to be addressing this directly.
Let me now if you have questions on this. Go back and take a look at the guidelines to understand my references.