1. The Piltdown Hoax was a false study in which bone fragments were found in fossilized remains that contained a skull of a human and the jawbone of a primate. It was found in 1912 at a excavation site in East Sussex, England by Charles Dawson. It would have been a great find because of the information it would have given us about the human brain and its expansion. It made the scientific community a lot more skeptical of such outlandish discoveries, as it should be. The hoax was discovered when the skull and jaw had been inspected closer, revealing minor alterations, like how the teeth of the ape's jaw had been filed down. This gave proof that there was someone out there that forged this skull. The scientists involved were in disbelief that this was a forgery. They couldn't believe that they had been fooled so easily.
2. Trusting the source without much questioning was a very big mistake in the Piltdown Hoax. Had there been more questioning of the skull and jaw, maybe the scientists would have realized that it was a fake before word was leaked to the public. I also feel that wishful thinking came into play because the scientists were so thirsty to find the "missing link".
3. Getting more than one opinion was definitely a positive aspect of using the scientific method to falsify the Piltdown Skull. Having one opinion of a potentially biased scientist is not a reliable source for a theory. Many other scientists with different viewpoints and techniques need to be consulted to get an accurate representation of the scientific view. In using these different viewpoints, you create almost a mean, or average, making it easier to pass off a scientific theory because of the wide spectrum of testers.
4. Removing the human aspect of science is impossible and impractical. Science has always been conducted by humans, so no matter how inorganic one may seem, that person will always have an opinion or viewpoint that will affect the experiment one way or another. It is impractical because even if there was a way to get a truly unbiased scientist, having the conduct the experiment would raise suspicions from scientists who oppose the result. Even if the result is 100% true, there will always be a handful of scientists wanting to prove that point wrong, thus wasting more time and effort in something that has an ultimately unimpactful end result.
5. Taking information you have never heard before as true is never a smart idea. Like the scientists have proven, bias is a real thing, even in science. Believing everything you hear is obviously a terrible idea, because you are bound to get skewed opinions and information from people who have hidden agendas or false reasoning. The internet is a prime example of this. While not always wrong, the internet is full of false information and flat-out lies. Take everything with a grain of salt, do your research from reputable sources, and form your own opinions to really get a thorough understanding of a subject.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn general, good synopsis, particularly since you included the issue of the evolution of larger brains.
ReplyDelete"...such outlandish discoveries..."
But was this an "outlandish" find? It was interesting and provocative but I don't think it was "outlandish" in that it should have raised red flags in and of itself. The problem was not in the claims made by the discoverers of this find but in the scientific community for not reviewing and analyzing the find, as required by the scientific method. They accepted it too readily.
How long did it take to uncover the hoax? Your synopsis seems to suggest it was relatively soon after it was presented to the scientific community. Is that an accurate impression?
Is the term "missing link" appropriate to use in reference to this find? Did you get a chance to review the background information on the problems with this term?
I agree with your discussion on the faults of the scientific community, but what about the perpetrators of this hoax? What faults were involved in the creation of the hoax in the first place?
Very good discussion on the "multiple perspectives" benefit of the scientific method. But what about the technology involved in uncovering the hoax? What tools were used to produce the evidence that the fossil was artificially created?
You mention only the problems with the human factor. Do humans bring any positive traits to the process of science that you would not want to lose, such as curiosity, ingenuity and intuition? Could we even do science without these positive human factors?
Good life lesson.
I completely agree with your statement, "Take everything with a grain of salt." I think this pertains to all aspects of like. My question is when you say that we should do our research from reputable sources, how do you think that we verify sources as reputable? If what you say is true, that all research and all scientists are biased, how can there be any real reputable sources? I don't necessarily agree when you say that all scientists are biased. What about the scientists who prove or disprove criminal cases through DNA? If they prove guilt do they have a bias that makes them say all suspects are guilty? And on the other hand, if they prove innocence do they have a bias that makes them say all suspects are innocent?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI feel a little like I have stepped into a different conversation as some things you write are not from my comment above, but I will dive in and try to answer your questions.
DeleteThe key point to this assignment is two-fold. In science, wie have two opposing and sometimes competing forces. On one side, you have humans, who bring not only curiosity and drive to the scientific process but also more negative traits, such as greed and ambition. Those negative traits will "color" results if a scientist is not careful or has intentions and goals other than pure scientific knowledge... which, if we are honest, will be just about every scientist to one degree or another.
On the other side is the scientific process itself, with scientific methodology being central to this. The way it works is to act as a filter of sorts, removing the "impurities" introduced by human bias and human faults and leaving behind the actual scientific facts. This may take 40 years to accomplish, but the good news is that it does work. The process of science takes the good of humans and turns it into remarkable discoveries and information that can reliably tell us so much about the world around us, leaving the bad and the bias behind.
So how can we use that realization to evaluate the information we are barraged with on a daily basis? Yes, as I said, all humans have bias of some sort, even if we try to avoid it. Subconsciously, it will still be there. But you can look for information that has (1) arisen from well-designed studies that use the scientific method reliably to weed out human error, (2) use information provided by educational and other sources that have reputations of historically providing information that rises from well-tested research and (3) place greater weight on information from individuals who are recognized as having well-earned authority in a topic, meaning they are reputed to be well-educated and reliable in their knowledge of a topic. Will this eliminate all unreliable bias? No, but you are dealing with humans! The best you can do it recognize that problem and work to find the best sources regardless.
One other point: You have to be alert to bias in your own position. One of the most common problems today is that people are guilty of what is called "confirmational bias". They ask questions and in their heads, they already have an idea of what the answer is. With or without conscious awareness of this ad hoc conclusion, they then tend to seek out information that just confirms what they already believe and ignore other information that contradicts it. I see this all the time with students who were raised not to "believe" in evolution, but you also see it in those who don't accept the evidence of climate change or the lack of connection between immunizations and autism. It doesn't matter what you say... they will only listen to the information that supports their pre-existing belief. Be careful to look for answers without deciding ahead of time what those answers will be.
Long-winded, and I'm not sure this answers your question? Let me know if you have a follow-up.