The Piltdown man was a hoax in which bones were presented as fossils remained of other previous human beings. The types of bones discovered were parts of a skull and jawbone and these such things were found and collected from a pit. The Piltdown hoax was discovered in 1912 in England. Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward are the persons which who discovered the hoax. This was said to have started when Dawson found a jawbone that he believed was an ape's jaw, but then realized it had human teeth. After doing research it was said that the hoax would have taught us that people cannot always rely on scientists for answers to be given on this type of work due to the Piltdown hoax being forged.
The human faults that come into play is self-esteem, lying, and having trust to fit in with others involved in the society. These faults highly impact this process in which Dawson and Woodward were involved and was the cause to why these scientists were viewed as lier's due to the Piltdown hoax.
The fraud that had been discovered in the process of the Piltdown hoax was when the scientists discovered that the bones dated back to 100 years old when they processed them using fluoride. Another discovery in this process that was made was that the bones clearly wouldn't match after they had gone through the process.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it isn't possible, but it would clearly be possible removing human factor from being involved in science, but i don't believe it would be the correct decision if it occurred due to brains having a bigger impact when critical thinking, and me not trusting the computer to doing ll the research just because of all the fraud that is occurring. Using the human brain is much rather reasonable to discuss, and go over many other thoughts that humans have in mind when discussing situations.
The life lesson i always have in mind and that is useful to me is to always do my own research when i am not 100% sure with what others have to say, i would rather spend time researching and thinking it over myself than to always have the trust in what others have to say.
There was a 40 year span of time between the discovery of Piltdown and uncovering the hoax. This is an important point and get's brushed over in your post. More of this complex tale should have been included here. A couple of points:
ReplyDeleteDawson and Woodward uncovered the fossil itself, not the hoax. This was uncovered by Kenneth Oakley, announced iin 1953.
What was the significance of this fossil, had it been valid? What would it have taught us about how humans evolved from a common non-human ape ancestor? What did the larger brain case of Piltdown have to do with this?
What was the response of the scientific community to the announcement of the Piltdown discovery, particularly the response of the British scientific community?
Not sure you understood the question of human faults. While the tendency to lie can definitely be seen as a fault, self-esteem and trust are not usually what we consider to be "faults". Think about why the perpetrators (whomever they were) might have created the hoax. How about greed or ambitions? And did the faults only lie on the side of the perpetrators? What about the scientific community? Why did they accept this fossil so readily, with so little of the necessary skepticism and analysis? Why didn't they do their jobs? This question is particularly pertinent for the British scientists. What incentive might they have had to accept Piltdown with few questions asked?
Who is credited with uncovering the hoax? And can you describe the key process that was used to provide the evidence that Piltdown was a fraud? But beyond the new technology and techniques, what aspects of the process of science itself helped to uncover this hoax? Why were scientists still analyzing this fossil find some 40 years after it was discovered? What aspect of science does this represent?
I'm not sure I understand your point on the issue of the human factor. You seem to be suggesting that getting rid of the human factor would be a bad idea given the importance of humans on critical thinking. That I can agree with. So you would argue that getting rid of the human factor would also get rid of positive human traits that we need in order to do science in the first place?
Okay on your life lesson but I wanted to highlight a point:
"...always do my own research..."
How realistic is this? Think of all the new ideas that are out there, from medical to technological to political and sociological. Can you really do your own research every time you are exposed to a new idea? While this might be ideal, it is not possible, which is why we need to learn to decide what authorities we should be able to trust evaluating new ideas. Yes, always be skeptical, but there is a point when you need to be willing to accept the judgement of people trained to evaluate this information. The question is, where to draw that line between trust and skepticism. You have to figure that one out on your own.
Hello Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post. You had some good information. You had a really good point in your life lesson, do your own research. I think that's important to any situation. You cant always rely on other people and their knowledge or understanding. Good point of view.