- In 1908 and 1912 ape, human, and other fossils of mammals were found at an archaeological site named Piltdown in England. An ape's jaw with a worn down canine similar to a human's was found in 1913 at a nearby site. Many believed that the "Piltdown Man" was the earliest Englishman, Sir Arthur Smith and Charles Dawson, whom were the ones who introduced piltdown everyone. This was believed to be the "missing link" between humans and apes. Martin Hinton and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are other scientists who were also involved in the Piltdown Hoax. Kenneth Oakley applied the chemical test to help authenticate and date fossils, which revealed that the Piltdown Man was much younger than they had thought. The jawbone was found to be that of a modern ape-orangutan , that had been chemically treated to make it look as though the ape-orangutan was lying there for centuries. The Piltdown had been forged and the scientific world was upset because of it.
- Scientist laughed at Conan Doyle's beliefs and one thing that comes out of that is revenge. Conan may have seeked revenge by joining in on the hoax to make himself feel better about being laughed at by the other scientists. One fault that has a possible role in this is revenge and self-pride.
- Paleontologist Kenneth Oakley's chemical test that is used to authenticate and date fossils is a positive aspect for finding that the skull had been fake.In 1949 the History Museum hired Oakley whom had no relevance to the piltdown findings to test the jaw and skull. Flourine testing was a new chemical analysis made by Oakley in which the fossils absorb the flourine from water and soil, that way fossils that have been in soil a certain amount of time should have the same amount of flourine. The results were that the fossils found had the same amount of flourine, but they were found to be much younger than what the scientists originally thought. Oxford professor of physical anthropology Joseph Weiner and Oakley had revised a new chemical testing and found out that the teeth and the jaw did not match the age of the skull and they were not even fossils, they were just bones. The bones were stained with chemicals and paint that had been painted on them to make them look similar to each other.
- I do not think the "human" factor can be removed in science to prevent errors like the piltdown hoax from happening in the future.Human factors such as curiosity and the ability to show the world their findings are what make scientists a scientist, well a good scientist. I think anybody that is in a profession such as science is human first, no matter what. It's just built in you, I guess you can say. For a scientist to be so caught up in their own feelings ruins the whole purpose of science and the purpose of having scientists around..
- I learned from this that even though they might have a "Dr." in front of their last name, you really cannot believe anything that is being presented to this world. there are so many things that are being thrown around on the internet, in the news, in social media, and just because it is out there for the world to see it, people automatically think it's true. Well at least the naive people. I mean the only way that someone can actually believe it is if they themselves know how to prove it. As for now we just have to believe the people who can be trusted. This was years ago, now we have all kinds of technology to prove things. The day I see cancer being cured, is the day I will believe anything that is brought to my attention.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Piltdown Hoax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejessika,
ReplyDeletei really enjoyed reading your post. i too feel that we shouldnt take the human factor out of science because i feel that some of those mistakes that may be made by humans are actually beneficial to the science community. i feel that every wrong answer is a step in the right direction towards the right answer so either way it proves to be beneficial.
Okay on your synopsis. Did you get a chance to review the background material on the term "missing link" in the assignment folder? I know this term was used in the video, but is it an accurate description of the significance of this fossil, had it been real?
ReplyDeleteThe significance of this find is not that it provided evidence of the connection between humans and apes. This wasn't in question. The significance is what it would have taught us about *how* humans evolved from that common ancestor. What would Piltdown have taught us about the process of evolution if it had been a valid fossil?
Actually, the evidence linking Doyle the hoax was insubstantial. We really don't know who were the masterminds of the hoax.
I agree that pride came into play here as a human fault, just not that it was Doyle's pride that was involved. Could greed and ambition have been involved? What about the scientists who so readily accepted this find as valid, particularly the British scientists? Why might they have met this find with so little skepticism and analysis, as was required of them?
Good description of the fluorine analysis. But what about the process of science itself? What is it about how science is conducted (correctly) that helped ensure that the hoax would be eventually uncovered? Why were scientists still analyzing this fossil some 40 years after it was unearthed?
"Human factors such as curiosity and the ability to show the world their findings are what make scientists a scientist."
Agreed, along with other positive aspects such as ingenuity, creativity and inquisitiveness.
"I learned from this that even though they might have a "Dr." in front of their last name, you really cannot believe anything that is being presented to this world."
Well, maybe just check to see what kind of doctor they are? The training of scientists makes them more credible when it comes to conducting and drawing conclusions from scientific research. But if a biologist with a PhD offers credible statements of the validity of evolutionary theory and a economist with a PhD claims that evolution is false, whose claim are you going to give more credit? It also matters if other scientists in the same field support that scientist or not. You need to be careful in your skepticism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak!
Jessika,
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of your points, it was very informative. Good job.
Hey Jessika,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree on your point about the human factor. I think that it's easy to forget that people are exactly that, people. Regardless what they're job is, it's hard not to think with a heart.
And as you stated, it's that human factor that can push you from being a good scientist to a great scientist. You can't just have 1 half of the qualities, you have to have both sides. A fully rounded scientist is a great scientist.
Hi Jessika,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post! I wanted to comment on your second bullet point where you discuss the faults of humans. Some points I made in my blog that id like to share is that humans have the desire to be prideful and be looked up to. Some other things to consider could be that no one decided to question of double check that this discovery was actually valid! Everyone was too excited about possibly finding the missing link!