Piltdown Hoax Blog Post
In a tiny town named Piltdown in 1912 a scientist named Charles Dawson made a discovery that shook up the scientific world. The fossil skull and jawbone that Dawson found that day were thought to complete the evolutionary chain by linking apes to humans. The finding was particularly earth shattering at the time, as the global scientific community was in a sort of race to find the missing link of the evolutionary chain. This chase was not dissimilar to the space race between the Soviet Union and the USA in the second half of the 20th century.
For 40 years “The Piltdown Man” was championed as the premier anthropological find of the era. But in 1940, science caught up with this discovery and the bones were tested with a fluorine test. The resulting find was that the human-like wear pattern on the teeth had been created by artificially filing down the teeth from an orangutan jaw. The skull pieces were found to have come from an unusually thick boned human skull. It had simply been boiled and stained to match the color and antiquity of the Piltdown gravels. This discovery ended up being a giant hoax.
For 40 years “The Piltdown Man” was championed as the premier anthropological find of the era. But in 1940, science caught up with this discovery and the bones were tested with a fluorine test. The resulting find was that the human-like wear pattern on the teeth had been created by artificially filing down the teeth from an orangutan jaw. The skull pieces were found to have come from an unusually thick boned human skull. It had simply been boiled and stained to match the color and antiquity of the Piltdown gravels. This discovery ended up being a giant hoax.
The issue with the entirety of “The Piltdown Man” is that science was so eager to answer the evolutionary questions that were unanswered between apes and men that they ignored the protocol of the process and the typical skepticism that accompanies the methods that dictate discovery in the field. Scientists wanted to find the bridge from apes to humans so badly that they ignored blatant holes in the story to get the answer they desired. The testing of the hypothesis with a complete set of tools is what proved the skull to be a fraud. Instead of just taking the find at face value, the bones were tested with a process that was not subject to the wanted outcome of the masses.
Removal of the “human” factor is what was needed to successfully prove “The Piltdown Man” to be false. But in science, especially in a discovery as great as this was supposed to be, it’s nearly impossible to remove the human element from the equation. A scientist in the field of anthropology will want to make a discovery like that, it would define a career for an eternity. But science has a process and a finality to it that allows for you to feel and desire a certain outcome, but following the scientific method provides for a certain outcome. Guard the feelings you have for the outcome you want, because science may very well disappoint you. Whatever is will be, and that’s just the way science wants it.
I appreciate the parallel with the space race (and you could argue that the nuclear arms races is also a valid parallel). Let's discuss this sentence, however:
ReplyDelete"The fossil skull and jawbone that Dawson found that day were thought to complete the evolutionary chain by linking apes to humans."
In the guidelines, it is specifically stated that the term "missing link" could not be used to describe the significance of this find. Did you review the information in the assignment module that explains why this term is not valid? Please make sure you go back and review this.
So the issue of significance remains. Had Piltdown been valid, it would have helped us better understand *how* humans (not *if*) evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. Piltdown was characterized by large cranium combined with other more primitive, non-human traits, suggesting that the larger brains evolved relatively early in hominid evolutionary process. We now know this to be incorrect, that bipedalism evolved much earlier with larger brains evolving later, but Piltdown suggested that the "larger brains" theory, supported by Arthur Keith (one of the Piltdown scientists) was accurate.
Beyond that, you don't really explain Piltdown itself. What bones were actually found? What bones were found? Other than Dawson, who was involved? What was unique about them? What was the scientific community's reaction when it was presented? This is a complex story and a lot more needed to be included here for your reader.
With regard to faults, let's ignore for the moment the misconception regarding the "missing link". You are correct that the scientific community did not do their due diligence when faced with Piltdown. That may have been due to the issue of national pride you mentioned earlier. But what about the perpetrators themselves? Why did they create the hoax in the first place? What human faults are involved there?
Yes, Piltdown was retested, but this was forty years later. What made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent? Also, can you describe the technology that was involved in uncovering the hoax? Is this a positive aspect of science as well?
"Removal of the “human” factor is what was needed to successfully prove “The Piltdown Man” to be false."
First of all, it was sticking with the correct process of science that uncovered the hoax, in spite of the human factor.
Second, you seem to be assuming all human factors are negative. Is that the case? Do humans bring nothing positive to the scientific process? How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?
Good life lesson.
Hey Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI read up on your post, and I like how you explained how scientists were blinded from the truth and were in a "space race" with each other to find the earliest human ancestor for their own country.
However, I think that as the module stated, using the term "missing link" is misleading and although it seems an natural way to explain the situation, it carries a connotation that differs from the true significance of the Piltdown discoveries.
I like how you stood on the human factor in science. Yes, we should keep our personal emotions out of science. On the other hand, I thought that the human factor provided some of the motivation that drives scientists to find different solutions to various problems.
Thanks for the post!