Week #5: Piltdown Hoax Blog Post
- The Piltdown man is the discovery of a skull fragment, a jaw bone, and teeth in 1912 in a small English town near Uckfield England. It was discovered by a laborer and was given to Charles Dawson. Over the course of a few years the Piltdown man was assembled and created the illusion that England discovered it’s much awaited earliest man. I was taken with pride for England. People were excited that England had finally found what Germany, France, and other countries have found previously. Charles Dawson, Sir Arthur Woodward, Pierre Teilhard, and more were suspects in this horrible forgery that left England scrutinized and the science world in an uproar.
- PRIDE. England wanted an early man so bad that some scientists wanted to be the one that discovered it and fabricated an elaborate hoax to obtain such royalties. The result of this forgery is a complete English embarrassment all around, both science and public.
- Around 1953, Kenneth Oakley used a chemical process, fluorine absorption test, to conclude that the skull was dated way earlier than Dawson claimed. Upon further inspection and scrutiny, it was revealed that the bones were stained using iron solutions and chromic acids, the teeth had been filed for authenticity, and the bones were actually three different species. Human skull from the medieval times, jaw bone from a 500 year old orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee.
- If we rely on accurate techniques to obtain accurate information than, human error will be limited. When it comes to humans, there will definitely be errors. If we use as many lab tests to check and double check our human findings, then errors should be limited. Humans have great ideas, but we need to find better and accurate techniques to check our theories and ideas.
- LIFE LESSON: Can’t Judge A Book By It’s Cover!
I like your life lesson. Short, simple, but I coudn't have put it better. Very detailed information on how the hoax was oncovered. I think with so many scientists striving for the truth, through tests, and accurate techniques as you said, human error will be limited. It would be impossible and horrible to remove "the human factor" from science.
ReplyDeleteI, too, like your final statement, though I would have to extend it to add "even if you like what the book cover says". Too many people accept what they see or hear or read just because it agrees with their existing beliefs or preconceptions. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with findings, it important to retest and re-check the results.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on having to find better techniques to help with less errors. I however do not think that the "human" factor should be removed. Yes as humans we all make errors but that is apart of life.Humans still tested hypothesis without computers and if there was an error they retested. Like Michele said in her statement about with all the scientist that retest after other scientist then we should be able to limit errors. Great job.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your life lesson. I chuckled at first, but then thought to myself, "Yeah that about sums it up." And the rest of you work was done very well also. Very detailed and thorough. Great job.
ReplyDelete