The piltdown hoax was about an archaeology site in England in which ape and human fossils were discovered; however, after a short examination of the fossils, it was discovered that the primate skull was not of ancient age. In 1953 the hoax was revealed as piltdown man. It was discovered to be a hoax when the fossils were actually examined, instead of just plaster molds.
Although scientists can be very creative, they are also human which means they are prone to make mistakes. In the piltdown case, the scientists took the evidence at face value without examining the evidence in person. This makes the entire scientific community look bad. The scientific investigation team observed filing marks on the teeth of the primate using a microscope. And upon further investigation of the skull, it was discovered that the skull had been washed in an iron and chloric acid solution.
I do not believe that you can remove the human factor from it. If it were possible to remove the human factor, I don't believe it would be very beneficial compared to the detrements of missing the human influence.
Obviously the life lesson is that we shouldn't take things at face value because it can easily be false.
When was Piltdown found? Was it really a "short" examination to discover the fraud? Or was it more like 40 years later? Was it claimed that ape AND human bones were found? Or just an early hominid? What did this find supposedly tell us about human evolution? Who found it? Who perpetrated the hoax? The fossil was called "Piltdown Man" when it was discovered, not when the hoax was revealed.
ReplyDeleteWas this a case of scientists making mistakes? Or of scientists giving into other human faults of greed and ambition? Why did English scientist accept the find with so little examination?
Why did it take 40 years to uncover the hoax? What was the test used to reveal the true date of the fossil? Who ran the test? What core aspects of the process of science itself led to revealing this fossil as a fraud? Was the whole fossil created from a human skull or from some other organism?
While I agree with conclusion on the issue of removing the "human factor", can you expand upon what you mean by "missing the human influence"? Didn't this event demonstrate the problems with the human influence? Why would there be detriments to losing it?
Please expand on your final sentence.
Missing many of the basic pieces of information from this event and short on explanation and analysis. Make sure your review the questions I have included here and read other student posts to see what you missed.
I wish you had used some more detail in explaining the piltdown hoax. It was Dawson and some others who collaborated to create this hoax for scientific prestige in their community, this not only effected the scientific communities ethics and trustworthiness, but also effected a whole theory of human evolution (brains growing before walking, if I remember correctly). Scientists at the time did not have the advanced technology we do now when these fossils were discovered and thus it was hard to disprove, it was the advanced age tests and chemical tests that disproved all of Dawson's discoveries.
ReplyDelete