The Piltdown Hoax
1912 in Piltdown England Charles Dawson who was an amateur archeologist
made a claim of finding a piece of a skull that looked primitive. He called for
Arthur Smith Woodward who was England’s leading geologist and together they
would find a jawbone that looked like an ape but with human teeth. There was
doubt in the science community but that doubt was quieted when there was a tooth
found that belonged to the jaw and skull and then another skull and it was said
to be our earliest ancestor. Arthur Keith who was England’s leading anatomist
believed in the findings which backed up his theory of evolution that big
brains were developed before walking upright. In the end it was found to be a
hoax that fooled many for 40 years.
The faults that came into play in this scenario was pride
and self-interest. Making something up to make oneself look more prestigious
and also to back up a theory of evolution. No one questioned scientist at that
time and even if someone had any doubts did not want to question anyone with as
much standing as Arthur Keith. Scientist or not, they were still humans who
felt pressures of rivalry and egotism.
In 1949 the fossils were tested for the amount of fluorine present.
It showed that the fossils were not as old as was thought, maybe only 100 thousand
years old. In 1953 the fossils were looked at and examined more thoroughly and
it was found that there was staining on the fossils that was superficial. It
also showed that the fossils were cut using a steel knife. Looking at the teeth
under the microscope it showed scratches looked to be made by a file. The
jawbone was found to be that of a female orangutan and was dated less than 100
years old.
I do not believe it to be possible to remove the “human”
factor from science unless you had some type of robot, but even then, there
could be errors. I wouldn’t want to remove the human factor from science. There
are so many precautions put in place now with having to prove your theories and
other scientists trying to reprove or disprove your same theory, that I believe
having a human factor is beneficial to science. Humans can contribute so much
information. I truly don’t believe the science community would be so easily
fooled again in this day and age.
A life lesson I think you could take away from this would be
that you shouldn’t believe everything you hear or see without any evidence or
without actually fact checking or looking for verified sources. Even if you
really want to believe it to be true, make sure you research and really take a good
look at any evidence presented.
In general,good synopsis, including the significance of this fossil, but you only tell half of the story. How was the hoax uncovered? By whom? And what happened in that 40 year span of time that helped lead to uncovering the hoax?
ReplyDelete"No one questioned scientist at that time and even if someone had any doubts did not want to question anyone with as much standing as Arthur Keith. "
This isn't true, not in the scientific community, even back then (though the general public didn't tend to challenge science). Scientists can gain prestige by shooting down the claims of another scientist, so there is no incentive to accept a conclusion without question... in fact, it is the JOB of a scientist to question, so beyond incentive, scientists actually failed to do their job properly when they accepted Piltdown with so little skepticism. This needs to be explored. So why did the scientists fail to do their jobs? Remember that Germany and France had already found their own hominid fossils. This would have been England's first. Would you like to be the British scientist that killed England's chance to be on the hominid map? Could national pride have played a role here?
"In 1949 the fossils were tested for the amount of fluorine present."
Okay... but who conducted this test? And why did they finally decide to retest the conclusions of Piltdown 40 years later? Scientists don't just randomly re-test old data and fossils. They would have to have a reason to do so, and this is why it is so important to understand what was happening in paleoanthropology in that 40 year span of time. What discoveries had been made that threw the conclusions of Piltdown into doubt, driving scientists to return and re-test the fossil?
"I believe having a human factor is beneficial to science. "
Correct, but how? This needed to be explained. Could we even do science without the curiosity in humans that push them to ask those initial questions? Or their ingenuity to create tests of their hypotheses? Or the intuition that helps them draw connections and conclusions from disparate pieces of information?
Good life lesson.
Hi Monica,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that the human aspect of science is necessary. While mistakes are made, there are checks and balances to avoid most issues. However, there is an issue when scientists are flat-out lying. There are no checks for this and, though rare, it is somewhat concerning to think the people we trust most in society could be disseminating false information. Nevertheless, I think humanity is just as much a part of science as science is a part of humanity because it is a construct of mankind, after all.