One of the great hoaxes in human history ( besides big foot) is the Piltdown Hoax. England 1912 Charles Dawson discovered what would be identified as the first remains of early humans in England. This was a fascinating find for the scientific community as it would shed light on evolution and how human like the skull was. Fast forward to 1953 and Dawson discovery crumbled as it was proved to be a hoax, Time Magazine published the evidence gathered by 3 scientists that showed the jaw of the skull and some teeth were from monkeys, presumably it showed to be that of an orangutan and chimpanzee, under close examination it was noted that the teeth had been filed down to a shape more suitable for that of a human diet, and the rest of the skull was a human skull from the medieval ages. The shock came when scientist recognized that it was man made discovery by fellow scientists .
After WWII the scientific community began to use fluorine content to date fossils, this leads to the Piltdown man to be examined and the result was contradicting to that of its claims, first it dated at about 100,00 years, baffled by this scientist did a larger scale and the result were more eerie, the remains were less than 100 years old. Their final analysis showed that the staining was superficial and it had been cut after being fossilized, a microscope showed the teeth had been filed down. Although it was a setback for science it also showed the positive effects of the scientific process. It was using scientific methods that led to the discovery of the hoax.
Removing the human element from science would not make any sense, due to our impressive cognitive abilities, are curious and we like to understand our surroundings. It is what makes science so exciting. The human element of discovery and understanding makes science what it is and I would not remove that element from science. Even evolution is a process of trial and error; Science can be successful the same way.
There is a reason why the scientific method was invented, regarding science I have learned to only believe what can be proven time after time by different people and it has a vast amount of prove to back it up, just as in life we see all this post in social media, and even in the News that try to exaggerate or make things seem differently than what they are and its best to really examine what we are being presented with and be logical.
Alejandra,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you mentioned the human cognitive ablilities really makes me happy. I never thought about it that way. I usually go toward the more emotional side of things. So thank you for that perspective. Also, I really liked the way you brought the things from the past to the present. You are so right about how social media and TV has distorted our understanding of the world and the truth! This post was well done!
You provide good information regarding how the hoax was discovered, but are a little thin on details for the discovery itself. How were the fragments discovered? Was there anyone else other than Dawson involved? What specific bones were discovered? What was the response of the scientific community to the announcement?
ReplyDelete"This was a fascinating find for the scientific community as it would shed light on evolution and how human like the skull was."
More specifics? The concept of evolution was generally accepted. It was no longer an question of *if* evolution occurred but the details of *how* it occurs. So let's apply that question to this scenario: If the Piltdown fossil had been valid, what would it have taught us about *how* humans evolved? That represents the significance of this fossil. Hint: Why was Woodward so enthusiastic about this fossil? It does have something to do with the shape and size of the skull, that might be a good place to start.
Missing the section on human faults? You can find blame in two primary places: (a) the perpetrators of the hoax (possibly Dawson but who else?) and (b) the scientific community for accepting this fossil find so quickly, without the scrutiny all new finds deserve. What faults are involved that drove the actions and response of these two groups? This can be considered from a personal perspective but it also helps to understand what was going on in other countries at this time in relation to hominid fossil finds.
Okay on the discussion of the technology, though to be more specific, the cranium (which was human-like) actually was human, from about 100 years prior. The jaw was modern but non-human, being from an orangutan.
What about the process of science itself? What aspects of the scientific process helped to provide evidence that this fossil was a fraud? Why were scientists still studying this fossil some 40 years after it was discovered?
" It is what makes science so exciting."
I agree, but it can be more concrete than that. Not only would science be less exciting without humans, I suggest it wouldn't even be possible without humans. What about the drive to ask the initial questions through our innate curiosity of the world around us? How about the intuition to draw connections between two disparate pieces of information? How about the creative ability to create new technology to solve problems? Could we even do science without these very human traits?
Good final section and good parallels with what we see outside of science.