The Piltdown Man in Piltdown, England was discovered by Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist hungry for the “missing link” as he writes about his discovery on February 14, 1912 of the skull found. For the next 40 years the skull is revered to be and perceived to be the fossil that connects humans with apes until a startling discovery was made. It was a fossil that was looked at, analyzed, and accepted to be over half a million years old by British scientists and scientists from around the world. The reputation of Dawson and his colleague, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, reached a new global level. They aided British scientists to claim that England was in the competition of identifying details of human evolution against Germany’s “Neanderthal” and Spain’s and France’s evidence of early man, as well. The race was on. Although, it only lasted for 40 years. The startling discovery took place within Britain’s Natural History Museum when Kenneth Oakley applied a chemical test that was finally used to test the age of the skull. The test dated the skull to be a lot younger than expected: it was a “phony.” The skull was stained to appear primitive, with the teeth filed down, and the jaw was from an old ape. It was devastating in and to the science community. British scientist were embarrassed, to say the least. The blame game was on as British scientists were picking up what is left of their shattered careers.
The human faults that come into play in this scenario which negatively affect the scientific process by the highlighting bias within science are egotism, pride, and rivalry. Egotism was clearly found in how Dawson and Woodward were so eager to show the world how their new discovery. Eventually, Dawson’s collection of artifacts that he claimed to be from antiquity were dismissed as frauds after the Piltdown hoax was revealed to the world. Woodward was the most eminent scientist at the Natural History Museum in Britain that his egotism was never questioned, it was allowed and praised. These two instances show how egotistical Dawson and Woodward were. With this information the science behind the discovery was based on a bias for fame which affected the scientific process for 40 years. Pride was another human fault exemplified in this scenario. Pride held back the fraudulent activity from the culprit confessing his or her wrong doing. There could have been many careers salvaged if the culprit allowed themselves to confess; although, easier said than done. Pride, specifically, spread throughout Britain. Britain was ecstatic that they had a primitive human fossil that they were blinded by not being more critical against Dawson and Woodward. Why wasn’t the fossil scientifically dated when it was found? The bias of pride became cancerous within the scientific community. Lastly, rivalry was a fierce human fault. The rivalry (W. W. I) between countries is one. However, another vicious rivalry was in the Museum between Woodward, department head of paleontology, and Martin Hinton, a fossil expert who eventually rose to become the department head of zoology. There are many signs that point toward Hinton in his knowing of the forgery, yet he never came out to acknowledge it. His skepticism fueled the dissension between them. Woodward’s status and unwillingness to believe otherwise kept the discovery undisputed. Woodward’s bias, specifically, may have just been what drove the hoax to last for so long. Nonetheless, the complexities and faults of human nature has and inevitably is involved in the scientific process.
The positive aspect of the scientific process that was responsible for revealing the skull to be a fraud was a method of relative dating: fluorine analysis. According to the textbook Introduction to Physical Anthropology, the authors describe that a fluorine analysis in bones found in the same location that are believed to be primitive aid in deciphering the relative age between them through the amount of fluorine found in the fossil: the longer the bones lie, the more fluorine it contains (294). Therefore, as the textbook continues to allude to, Professor Kenneth Oakley used this method to analyze the skull with the jaw bone found at the Piltdown site. He found that the skull had a difference of fluorine when compared to the jaw bone. This discrepancy of fluorine content led him and other scientists to investigate and find that the jaw bones was from an orangutan. His fluorine analysis of the bones was the positive aspect of the scientific process for revealing the skull to be a fraud.
I believe that to remove the human factor from science to reduce the chance of errors is highly unlikely; in fact, it is impossible. As some may argue that humans were made in the likeness of God, they are not perfect. People make mistakes, its in our nature. Even the most revered make mistakes. For instance, Albert Einstein once said that “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.” Therefore, the theory of a flat Earth was subject to “human stupidity,” yet trial and error has shaped modern science to flourish in explaining phenomenons found in the universe. I would not want to remove the human factor from science because maybe we are no supposed to know everything, thus our “stupidity” holds us back from omnipotence. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. This to me can be a negative thing.
Unlike the scientists in Britain when the Piltdown discovery was announced, a lesson that I take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources is that it does not matter who offers information, research and understand the information before taking a firm stand on it. For instance, evolution in the media is something that is always referred to as controversial, yet there is no concrete information provided on it that may allude to the controversy. Creationism and evolution are in direct conflict with each other, why? Taking this class has enlightened me on the mechanisms of evolution, but in order for me to take a firm stand for or against it, I must research and understand argument from creationists. It is only fair for me to make an informed decision before finding out 40 years later that I made a mistake.
There is a common misconception that the Piltdown fossil was a big deal because it represented the "missing link" between humans and apes. There is no such thing as a missing link. The importance of the Piltdown find (had it been valid) was that it was (a) found in England, which had been missing out on the fossil finds as you point out and (b) it supported the hypothesis (Keith's) that larger brains developed before other human traits.
ReplyDeleteExcellent discussion on the multiple faults involved in this hoax, including the issue of national pride, which may likely be why other scientists didn't push as hard as they should have to have the fossil claims validated.
Good coverage on the process that uncovered the hoax.
Are there any positive aspects of the "human factor" that you would not want to lose from the scientific process?
Nice connection with modern issue of the media's influence in the distribution on scientific information and its questionable reliabilty and negative impact. Other than a couple of points (identified above), well done.