In 1912, the Piltdown Man hoax occurred in England. Human fossils found by Charles Darwin were found to be similar to an ape-like primate. This discovery immediately led to support of the theory that brain size developed previous to walking upright, which we know know to be false. At the time, scientist believed that primates evolved into humans, rather than evolving in to two separate species, like we know now. Before the technology we have now, it was easy to make mistakes. Now, we have better accuracy when it comes to dating fossils. Due to this hoax, many people opposed scientific theories, specifically evolution, and viewed them as mere conspiracies.
In any situation, it is human nature to want to be right. Our pride gets in the way, and often times without realizing it, we have come to a conclusion based on what we believe to be truth, when in reality, our pride and the desire to be right has clouded our "research." At the time of this "discovery" there was an urgency to be first. This could have played a large role in the hoax.
This hoax led to a more careful analyzation of future theories and discoveries. It was important for scientists to go back and uncover this hoax in order to redefine the scientific method and the idea of retesting a hypothesis before claiming it as truth.
I believe that removing the human factor from science, if it were even possible, would defeat the purpose of science. Science is meant to be studied, as well as learned from. Removing the human factor would get rid of the question "why" that so many scientists have asked, leading us to what we know now.
This hoax can be related back to every day life. As humans, we cannot always take everything for what someone says it is. It is in our nature to want to be right, but also to fall short, and be wrong. Life, and science, is about discovering ideas for ourselves, and working through our own process of belief.
Your description of the Piltdown hoax is very thorough and well done. Also, I agree with your ideas in terms of removing the "human" factor in science. Part of science is trial and error, and some of the human race's greatest accomplishments were mistakes, like Penicillin.
ReplyDeleteYou have some good detail in your synopsis but also some misconceptions and some missing information that needs to be corrected.
ReplyDeleteA couple of opening corrections in terminology. The fossils found were presented as hominid fossils, not human. Also, since humans ARE primates, comparing the fossils to "ape-like primates" doesn't tell us much, as that describes human as well. To be precise, you refer to non-human apes.
"At the time, scientist believed that primates evolved into humans"
Again, humans are primates, so this doesn't really make sense.
"...rather than evolving in to two separate species, like we know now."
There are hundreds of extant primates, so again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Make sure you say exactly what you mean.
You are correct in identifying that the significance of this fossil find was that it supported Arthur Keith's theory that larger brains evolved earlier in hominid evolution than other hominid traits such as dentition or bipedalism. What you need to do is describe the bones that were found that offer that support. What bones were discovered by Dawson and the others? What was remarkable about them?
How did the scientific community receive the fossil discovery? Why, in particular, were British scientists particularly enthusiastic about this fossil? Expand. Tell your readers the whole story.
I don't disagree that pride probably played a role here, but you have a situation where a perpetrators (or multiple) actually created a false fossil... so how can it be an issue of their wanting to be "right"? They are presenting a lie to the scientific community. If they wanted to be right, they shouldn't have created the hoax, correct? Is it possible that ambition might have played a role here? What about the scientific community? Why didn't they give the discovery the scrutiny all new scientific finds deserve? What faults might be involved there?
"It was important for scientists to go back and uncover this hoax in order to redefine the scientific method and the idea of retesting a hypothesis before claiming it as truth."
Agreed, though it wasn't about "redefining" the scientific method. It was about using the practice of testing and retesting (as you suggest), already part of the scientific method, to uncover the hoax. Aside from this aspect of science, was there any new technology that helped to provide evidence of the hoax? Some background on that would have been helpful here.
Yes, only humans can ask those initial questions of not just "why" but "how" that drives the process of science.
Good life lesson.
"This hoax led to a more careful analyzation of future theories and discoveries"
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, i think that this led to scientists paying a lot more attention to what is happening in their field. I think it led to better documentation and led to a lot of scientists double checking their work so that something like this hoax didn't end up happening to them too.
Hello, I completely agree with what you had to say and I think you had a great description! Also I really liked your life lesson. I agree that everyone likes to be right and not fall short!
ReplyDelete