- Begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Piltdown hoax, including when and where it was found, by whom, its scientific significance(what would it have taught us)and varying effects this had on the scientific community. Also include how the hoax was discovered and the varying responses it received from the scientist(s) involved and in the related fields of human evolution.
The Piltdown man hoax was the claim in 1912 by Charles Dawson that he had found the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains consisted of parts of a Pleistocene-era human-like skull. Later finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, teeth, and primitive tools. The scientific significance would be profound, particularly the claimed tool finds. It provided another picture in the ongoing story of human evolution, a glimpse of how humans became what we are.
In November 1953, an article in Time magazine containing evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proved that the Piltdown Man was a forgery. They showed that the supposed fossil was a composite of three distinct species: a medieval age human skull; a 500 year old lower jaw from an orangutan; and chimpanzee fossil teeth. These had been stained with chemicals to artificially age them, but closer examination revealed file marks on the teeth; somebody had modified the teeth to make them look more suited to a human diet.
The hoax succeeded because at the time of its discovery the scientific consensus was that the large modern brain preceded the omnivorous diet. Piltdown Man provided exactly the evidence to support that. Some have also claimed that nationalism played a role in the easy acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. The British allegedly wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe. - Scientists are curious, creative and persistent by nature, but being human, they also have faults. What human faults come into play here in this scenario and how did these faults negatively impact the scientific process?
In a way Piltdown Man told scientists what they wanted to hear. It validated some of their preformed concepts and so they were less than critical about it. This in turn meant that for some time a forgery was held as scientific fact, skewing evolutionary science with a lie and essentially wasting a lot of time and energy on something that wasn't real. - What positive aspects of the scientific process were responsible for revealing the skull to be a fraud? Be specificabout scientific tools, processes or methodologies that were involved in providing accurate information about the Piltdown skull.
Scientists have used some of the most advanced forensic techniques to examine Piltdown Man. This includes isotopic analysis, carbon dating and DNA extraction to determine the true origins of the various remains. These techniques, along with microscopic analysis revealed the lie. - Is it possible to remove the “human” factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor from science?
Theoretically a computer could conduct science and have no human faults other than those in its programming. People will always be people though. We can minimize the influence our feelings have, but ultimately they're still there. And that can be good, because our feelings can motivate us and help us think creatively to answer tough questions. - Life Lesson: What lesson can you take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources?
We shouldn't take anything as true without strong supporting evidence. If they have no trustworthy sources to support what they're saying, don't trust that they're correct.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
The Piltdown Hoax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Overall, good synopsis, with good detail.
ReplyDeleteI want to address your suggestion on significance of this fossil discovery:
"It provided another picture in the ongoing story of human evolution, a glimpse of how humans became what we are."
Correct, but can we be more specific on what part of the "story" this would have contributed? 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.
I agree that the scientific community was partially at fault for the perpetuation of the Piltdown hoax (and good explanation here). But what about the perpetrators themselves? Why did they create the hoax in the first place? What human faults are involved there?
I don't think DNA extraction was available in 1953. What about fluorine analysis? This was the key technology that led to uncovering the hoax. And what made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent?
"Theoretically a computer could conduct science..."
Could it? Could a computer ask the initial question that drives the inquiry? Could a computer create an experiment that tests a possible answer to the question? Could a computer make connections between two disparate pieces of information and draw conclusions as a result? Could you really do science without humans?
Okay on life lesson, but it would have been appropriate to expand on this.
You make some very good points, I'll address a few:
Delete"Why did they create the hoax in the first place? What human faults are involved there?"
I would say a sort of hubris, a lust for respect and recognition, and fallibility to what are often called "sins", in this case i.e. lying. They possibly weren't aware, although this is disputed, that they were being dishonest at all. Their finds happened in close proximity and they concluded the remains to be of one individual. As you said, this was accepted because of the larger brains theory regarding the development of brain size and other "human" traits. They wanted to be right, and so artificially aged their finds to make them appear much older than they were. This made them "right" for a long time, but ultimately their fallibility was proven.
Regarding other technologies like DNA extraction, I'm sorry I read somewhere about that being used later to further support the refutation and should have distinguished and talked about the original disproval more.
What happened initially is that Oakley applied the fluorine test and concluded that the remains had been interred recently. It wasn't until later ('53) that scientists began to suspect fakery. Before this the remains had been a sort of mystery, something whose connections to other remains wasn't quite clear. Scientists reexamined the remains out of curiosity, because it certainly was curious. This represents the sort of constant questioning. Observation is one of the key elements in science; and so constantly looking and seeking to understand using our senses is the human root of science.
Artificial intelligence exists, although it is crude. I'm not sure how close to creating curiosity in computers we are, but they can certainly be taught to derive tests and answer questions; this is the core of machine learning which drives things like Siri and Alexa. Computer learning also includes making abstract connections, and this sort of programming is decades old, although it has grown immensely in sophistication. Computers can have conversations, they can learn to make suggestions, they can be taught to dream, they're learning to be curious, and IBM among others are developing technology that will directly model the interactions of neurons with electronic components. Human endeavour is getting awfully close to replicating ourselves with metal and plastic.
I can expound upon the life lesson in that the aforementioned core human curiosity must be put into action. We must constantly question for ourselves, to see the evidence and draw our own conclusions. That's the essence of scientific consensus, is that separate individuals independently derive conclusions that are very close or the same. So with Piltdown Man it was simply accepted that these were some early human remains. It wasn't until the 50's that closer examinations were made by third parties that found the damning evidence. The lesson is that we should do better. It's embarrassing that it took so long to fully investigate and disprove the Piltdown Man hoax.
Thank you for the response. I'll just push back on the "human faults" issue...
DeleteThis isn't about how much computers can assist. This is about whether you can remove humans from the process completely, which is what you would need to do to take out the faults that caused this event. My point is that for science to be science, humans are a required component. They the driver of science, the force that initiates the inquiry, designs the test, and draws the conclusions. It is not possible to remove the human factor from science... without it, you have no "science".
I'm not talking about computers assisting in science. I'm talking about the fact that there are companies currently pursuing the creation of artificial intelligence, replete with curiosity and initiative. The reality is that a computer might pass the Turing test within our lifetimes, and the leap from conversational indigistinguishability to full capacity to do real science isn't much, if anything.
Delete