1) The Piltdown Hoax was a scheme that started in 1912 when fossil remains said to be part of an early human were found in Piltdown, England. In 1953 however, the fossil remains were found to be a forgery and that they consisted of parts of an orangutan and a modern human. The men whom most likely cultivated the scheme are known as Charles Dawson and possibly Arthur Keith. Dawson has been the leading suspect for quite some time because coincidentally the fossil findings stopped as soon as he died. Keith has also been a prime suspect because he seemed to be the one who had the biggest motive. If the fossil had not been a forgery, scientists believed it could have been the answer to the relationship between apes and humans. The scientific community was mostly astonished at the find, however, there were a few skeptical scientists. The way scientists proved it was a forgery was because it actually was discovered to consist of three different species.
2) It was reported that jealousy may have been a factor in the decision to cultivate the Piltdown Hoax. Some scientists could possibly have been jealous that no human remains had been found in England so far. Whatever the motive was for whomever created the hoax, the person responsible was selfish, dishonest and irresponsible. This had a huge impact in the community because scientists for the most part always been well respected individuals. Now, with the hoax it opened up the door to the possibility that scientists could not be presenting truthful information.
3) A positive outcome of proving that the skull was a forgery was that now we don't take in information without questioning it. I believe that there was a time where a scientists word was good enough because the were so well respected. By questioning data we can now prove the authenticity of aspects of science such as fossil remains.
4) I believe that many things now can be analyzed by computers or robots instead of humans, which in turn provides us with more accurate analysis. However, I don't believe that taking out the human factor entirely would be a good idea nor would it work. Archaeologists make a living off finding information from the past and for the most part they are are pretty good at what they do. I also don't believe that a non-human factor could always be entirely accurate.
5) The biggest lesson that can be learned is that we can't always just accept something as being truthful just because somebody told us it was. Questioning and thorough analysis is vital to prove the authenticity of whatever piece of data an individual is presented with.
"If the fossil had not been a forgery, scientists believed it could have been the answer to the relationship between apes and humans."
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't that grand (and this is essentially saying the phrase "missing link", which is not the significance of this find). You mention Arthur Keith but then don't explain how he had the biggest motive. That was the right track. Keith argued that large brains developed early in human evolution and Piltdown supported that idea, with a larger cranium and a jaw more like a non-human ape. It was also significant because it was the first hominid found on British soil.
How was the forgery uncovered? This should have been part of your initial synopsis.
I agree with your reasoning behind the faults that led to the creation of the hoax, but what faults explain why it was accepted so readily by the scientific community? Shouldn't they have received these claims with more skepticism?
The question in part 3 wasn't about the positive outcome but the positive aspects of the process of science that led to the hoax being uncovered, both from a technological and methodological perspective. What tools and methods helped provide evidence that this fossil was a hoax?
You mention only the problems with the human factor. Do humans bring any positive traits to the process of science that you would not want to lose, such as curiosity, ingenuity and intuition? Could we even do science without these positive human factors?
Good life lesson.