In early 1912, Charles Dawson told Arthur Woodward, keeper of geology at the natural history museum, that he had discovered a piece of thick human skull at Piltdown in Sussex. Together they pursued this discovery by "unearthing" more skull fragments and a jawbone with 2 teeth. Both believed that these parts belonged to the same person and they created a reconstruction that suggested it had belonged to an individual with a large brain, an ape like jaw with human teeth. They suggested this individual lived longer than 500,000 years ago. As years went by and different remains began to be discovered by different scientists it was discovered that none of them matched the piltdown mans. Scientists, Kenneth Oakley, Joseph Weiner and Wilfred Le Gros Clark worked together to test the Piltdown fossils and discovered that the fragments were from two different species, a human and an ape. It was learned that the teeth that were found were in fact ape teeth which were filed down to look human, thus exposing the hoax.
The human faults that came into play were pride and simple arrogance. There is no doubt that Dawson and Woodward believed that humans did evolve from apes and when Dawson first discovered the fragments he probably thought they were all from a human. But when he and woodward realized this wasn't the case they chose to falsify evidence, (filing down the teeth, among other things) in order to maintain that they were right.
Oakley ran fluorine tests that made use of how fluorine accumulates in calcium-containing organic matter such as bones and teeth. Doing this Oakley discovered the bones were less than 50,000 years, not old enough to have derived from an ape like species. Weiner and Clark discovered under their microscope the file marks on the teeth leading them to discover the teeth were not human.
Humans will always be needed to test hypothesis and to prove what technology claims. The whole reason for the scientific process is for humans to gain knowledge. I wouldn't want to remove the human factor because even though there is a chance that a person will lie or falsify evidence I believe that over all humans are striving for truth and so I choose to believe in them.
What I learned is that if you are going to trust someone than they better have real proof. And even then at the end of the day is you can't always believe what you hear. Some things can only be trusted when test by ourselves.
In general, you have the basics of the background, but it leave a couple of questions open.
ReplyDeleteYour post give the impression that the uncovering of the hoax occurred not too long after the initial discovery. How long did it take to uncover the hoax?
What was so important about this find? If it had been valid, what would it have told us about human evolution?
Your section on human faults hits two big possibilities, but be careful about too much speculation. There is a lot we don't know about this case. Aside from personal faults, what about the issue of national pride, since this was the first hominid find on English soil? How might that have impacted this case?
You mention two tests that were used to uncover the hoax, but what characteristics of the process of science itself contributed to uncovering the hoax?
While I follow your line of argument in the section on the human factor, the statement that you choose to believe (or "trust") humans is odd in the face this assignment. How about trust and verify? :-) Another point: Are there any positive aspects of the human factor that you would not want to take away from science?
Interesting that you would need proof to trust. Seems like that is the definition of skepticism, not trust? But I understand your point.
Overall, you did a good job on the post but it was odd the way it seemed like the discovery of the hoax only happened a couple years after the initial discovery, when it was actually decades which is why it was such a controversy. People had been basing important work off of the findings for decades when the it was false the whole time.
ReplyDelete