The Piltdown Man was "found" by an archaeologist named Charles Dawson, in Pilton, East Sussex (England). After studying this specimen, scientists originally thought that through human evolution, we acquired a larger brain before being able to stand more upright (as modern humans do today). Although it was eventually proven to be a hoax by the scientific community, it could also be thought of as beneficial, since a farce as large as this one hadn't occurred prior, leading the community to be more skeptical about new scientific information in the future.
The Piltdown man was declared a hoax, due to evidence gathered by Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, Joseph Weiner, and Kenneth Oakley. It was discovered that the skull of the Piltdown man was composed of parts from three different species. More specifically, a medieval human skull, the lower jaw of an orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee. This was a shock to the scientific community, as one would not anticipate a forgery on this scale, due to scientific discoveries being based on hard evidence that would otherwise not be challenged to do it's validity.
The human faults at play here, include the fact that the skull had not been more closely examined by the scientific community when the Piltdown man was first discovered. Since scientific findings had never really been fabricated before, the idea of a man-modified skull had not been taken into account. Because of this, they had been led to believe that the Piltdown man was a legitimate ancestor of modern primates.
The Piltdown man was eventually proven to be a hoax due to a number of processes. One being, that when (Clark, Weiner, Oakley) the teeth of the skull had been viewed under a magnifier, the teeth appeared to be scratched by some sort of file that had grounded down the teeth. The next important process was the fluorine test, which showed that the jaw and teeth were not the same age as the skull was, and weren't even considered fossils, but rather just worn out bones. Finally, upon closer inspection, different parts of the skull had been chemically stained or even painted to look similar to each other, further suggesting that the skull was not a legitimate source of evidence for human evolution.
It is possible to remove this human factor from science, as now scientists will just need to be more thorough in examining proposed data for a new theory, discovery, etc. However, I would not want to completely remove the factor of human error from science, as it is errors that help us determine a better way to carry out tests, as an error-free test may yield usable results, but they may not be as efficient compared to (what could have been) a test that has adapted to previous error.
I think we can all take from this fascinating story of genetic history, that you should always be skeptical of scientific proposals. If we always gave free passes to those that had new theories with evidence that appears to be accurate, but without actually verifying it, the world we live in today could be interpreted in a completely wrong way, factually speaking.
Your response regarding if it is possible to remove the human factor from science is spot on, it is true that scientists need to be more thorough in examining the data; that's how science and places such as the museum that held the fossils, can be seen as more accountable with its artifacts, etc. You're right, the factor of human error is what helps us further examine artifacts/theories and with further testings, those results makes humans/scientists more accountable and more reliable.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post! I'm wondering what exactly is meant by the human factor? Although there is very sophisticated technology now, it still take humans to discover and conceive ideas and theories. What is it all for if the human element is taken away.
ReplyDeleteNancy Alfaro
You did a good job on explaining the Piltdown? I agree with you I believe we should be skeptical I personally say if it have ones it will happen again.I also agree it is possible to remove the human factor. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post on Piltdown Man. I got notes that I did not catch from the video myself. I myself would not want to remove the "human" factor from science, because, like how you phrased it. Learning from your mistakes creates efficiency and "Tests that have adapted to previous error". Could not have phrased it better myself. We do always need to remember to scrutinize what we hear instead of believing everything we hear. Need to check the sources first or it can lead to a deviant and inaccurate future.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, well done identifying the key significance of this fossil find, had it been valid, namely the support of Keith's pet theory of larger brains evolving early in hominid evolution before other hominid traits such as dentition or bipedalism.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the synopsis is a little scarce on details and your readers could have benefited from a more complete telling of this tale. Can you describe the bones that were found? Who else was involved in the discovery and analysis? Was there another reason this fossil was significant, in terms of where it was found? How was it received by the scientific community? How long did it take to uncover the hoax?
Good coverage on the process of uncovering the hoax, but it really is important to note that it took about 40 years for this to happen after the initial discovery.
The fact that the fossil wasn't examined after it was presented isn't a human fault. It is a factual event in this hoax. The question is why did this happen and why didn't the scientific community complain about it? What might have motivated them (particularly British scientists) to accept this discovery without the scrutiny it was supposed to receive.
Aside from the scientific community, what about the perpetrators? What faults led them to create this hoax in the first place? How about pride? Ambition? Greed?
Good job explaining the process that uncovered the hoax. But why were scientists still studying this find some 40 years after it was uncovered? What aspect of science does that represent?
I don't disagree with your point in the section on the "human factor', but you seem to be assuming all factors are negative. Is that the case? Do humans bring nothing positive to the scientific process? How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without humans asking the initial questions that drive science forward?
Okay on your final life lesson, but How would you apply this to your own life, in and outside of science?
I disagree that without human error, test results would prove to be less sufficient than with it. In my opinion, a test that is done most optimally will carry the best or most optimal results. The only reason for human involvement in an experiment is for any initial discovery leading to the experiment. For your life lesson, I also decided that skepticism plays an important role in how we should sometimes look at things. Thank you for your post.
ReplyDelete