1. Charles Dawson was digging in a gravel pit and claimed to find the remains of an ancient human skull in the town of Piltdown, England. The Scientists used the measure of fluorine content in fossils to roughly date how old the fossil was. They concluded that the fossil was actually relatively young. The artifacts were stained and the teeth had been scratched down.
2. The human faults that came into play was that the people involved with this hoax wanted fame and attention. England wanted fame in finding a human skull and participate in the scientific community.
3. The positive aspects in revealing the skull was the use of fluorine to determine the approximate age and then the advances such as using radiocarbon dating.
4. I don't think it is possible to remove the human factor from science because the human factor provides information to other people such as new theories and concepts. People can't be replaced by other things because there might not be varied speculations.
5. The life lesson is that to never take something as true or correct from an untrusted or unverified source.
If I were a person completely unfamiliar with Piltdown, the first paragraph in your post would have left me with the impression that a fossil was found and debunked immediately, instead of a significant hoax that persisted for 40 years before finally being debunked. Expand!
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, what was the significance of this find from a scientific perspective? If it had been valid, what would it have taught us about how humans evolved?
The need for fame (ambition) likely was an underlying cause of this hoax. Can you explain why England (actually English scientists) would have had incentive to hope this fossil was valid? Again, expand.
Can you explain the process of fluorine analysis? While I agree that advances in technology did contribute to exposing the hoax, what characteristics of the process of science itself helped ensure that the hoax would eventually be uncovered? Why were scientists still studying this fossil 40 years later?
I see your point about multiple inputs, but can science even begin to work without humans? What about human traits of curiosity? Ingenuity? Intuition and innovation?
RE your final section: Expand. This is a paper, not a short answer assignment. Make sure you explain and justify your answer fully.
Hello Zach,
ReplyDeleteGood post, could have expanded more in your first paragraph, but I understand what you are saying. There are many reasons why humans can not be removed from science, including the one you stated. A big part of science is discovering new things and thinking "outside of the box" when it comes to learning about the world around us. As far as I know there is no machine that can think for itself and I doubt there will ever be a machine that knows more than every human so I don't think we will or should ever be replaced.
--Cody Bever
Hello Zach, I agree that one of the human faults that came into play in the hoax was the desire for fame and attention, but I also believe that fear allowed the hoax to go on for more than 40 years. The fear I am referring to is the fear of challenging the findings and challenging the individuals theory/explanation.
ReplyDeleteHey Zach,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion about England turning the other cheek because they were proud something remarkable happened on their soil. I didnt even think about that until I read your post. I also believe that we would never be able to remove "human" from science. That what makes the mystery so addicting. Its a shame that these ways of proving faulty discoveries didnt come out sooner.