Over 100 years ago in 1912 scientist and archaeologist Charles Dawson from Sussex, England claimed to have found the "missing link" between mankind and apes. This discovery was significant in this time period especially due to the fact that the theory of evolution had just been released by Darwin 53 years prior. Dawson had claimed that he had found part of a human-like skull that resembled a mix between a human and an ape, which was then accepted in good faith from other scientists within his community. This discovery had shifted the scientific perspective on the whole evolution of humans, because this skull pointed towards evidence that humans had evolved bigger brains before gaining the ability to walk on two legs. Today, we know that this is not the truth and that it is rather much the opposite. However, scientists did not have the technology or even the slight offhand suspicion that this skull was a hoax, and therefore it became modern belief that the skull was indeed from a human.
Years later in 1949 Dr. Kenneth Oakley used his dating technology to research the skull, and found shocking evidence that disregarded the skull as evidence immediately. Oakley had discovered that the skull was only 50,000 years old, which would have made it impossible to be a human skull considering that humans had already evolved into their Homo Sapiens form by that point. Joined by scientists Joseph Weiner and Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, the three also found that the skull fragments came from two multiple species, a human and an ape (most likely an orangutan). Not only did these scientists discover the hoax, but they also found the faults within humans as well. In this scenario, their fault was their faith in humanity, and their lack of upholding a sense of accountability to check the facts on the skull. However though it was the fault of the scientists who accepted the discovery based off a gut feeling, it is not their fault they had no means to actually test the skull to find its validity. Nonetheless, the human tendency to have faith in one another negatively affected the scientific process because until the hoax was uncovered, scientists had been thrown off track for years due to the fact they believed something false to be true.
Though the human factor misled scientists for years, the fraud was brought to light due to a positive aspect of the scientific process. Dr. Oakley had access to newer technologies that would allow him to check the facts for himself, which is what he did. By doing so, he found many differences between the Piltdown Man and a human skull, which disproved a theory that had not been previously been fact checked. Because of Oakley's intuition and gut feeling, he was raised to action to find if the skull really did point to evidence that brains evolved before the ability to walk on both legs. The example of a positive result that comes from the existence of a human factor in science was this discovery in general. If it was not for the human factor, this mess would have never been created. But furthermore, the mess never would have been fixed either. Because of this, I would argue it is necessary for the human factor to play a role in science.
On that day in 1949 when the hoax was uncovered, a valuable lesson was taught to the entirety of the scientific community: don't ever believe something based on a gut feeling; only rely on fact and fact only. Because of the scientists to neglect that mindset, Dawson was able to get away with fooling the general community into believing that the skull pointed towards new evidence on human evolution. Even though it would have been difficult to check for facts in this situation, there's no doubt that it should not have been accepted without question.
"This discovery was significant in this time period especially due to the fact that the theory of evolution had just been released by Darwin 53 years prior"
ReplyDeleteWhat we are looking for here is the scientific significance of this discovery in terms of how it would have advanced our knowledge of hominid evolution, not in terms of its significance with regard to the scientific historical record.
And, as explained in the guidelines, the term "missing link" is not a valid claim to significance either. Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time. The assignment module provides background information that explains the problem with this concept. Make sure you take the time to review this.
So the issue of significance remains. Yes, this was significant because it was the first hominid found on English soil, but there was also *scientific* significance. 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.
"...this skull pointed towards evidence that humans had evolved bigger brains before gaining the ability to walk on two legs. "
Yes! That is the significance.
The opening section was an opportunity to include a synopsis for the entire event, including how the hoax was uncovered. You include that part in your second section. I followed it after a little confusion. I suggest answering the prompts as asked so there is no confusion as to where you address the pertinent points.
Regarding: Faults -- First off, there is a component here that you are overlooking, namely the faults that were involved in the creation of this hoax in the first place. Why did the culprits create this hoax? Greed? Ambition? A need or notoriety? This is the first half of the fault puzzle.
The second half is the faults of the scientific community and you do address it here. What you are describing is not reflective of how the scientific community, even back then, receive and process new discoveries. It is the job of scientists to NOT act on faith or a 'gut feeling' when presented with new information, and it is also part of their job to be accountable for their actions (or inaction for that matter). In fact, scientists can gain prestige by shooting down the claims of another scientist, so there is no incentive to accept a conclusion without question... so beyond incentive, scientists actually failed to do their job properly when they accepted Piltdown with so little skepticism. This needs to be explored. So why did the scientists fail to do their jobs? Remember that Germany and France had already found their own hominid fossils. This would have been England's first. Would you like to be the British scientist that killed England's chance to be on the hominid map? Could national pride have played a role here?
Google limited my comment so I will complete it here:
Delete____________________________________
Was it a "gut feeling" alone that drove Oakley and others to return and re-examine Piltdown? Or was it evidence? In that 40 year span of time before the hoax was uncovered, the field of paleoanthropology continued and provided more hominid fossils, ALL of which contradicted the conclusions of Piltdown (specifically related to the issue of larger brains). These contradictions are what drove scientists to return and retest Piltdown.
Can you describe the new technology that was used to provide evidence that Piltdown was a hoax?
I don't understand your section on the "human factor". If not for the "human factor", would we even have science in the first place? If the human factor has it's positive aspects, that needed to be explained here. Could we even do science without the curiosity in humans that push them to ask those initial questions? Or their ingenuity to create tests of their hypotheses? Or the intuition that helps them draw connections and conclusions from disparate pieces of information?
Good life lesson.