The Piltdown was a Let Down

The Piltdown Hoax originated in East Sussex, an area of England within the years of 1908 and 1912 where archeologist, Charles Dawson, geologist, Arthur Smith Woodward and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardi, discovered the remains of humans, apes and other mammals, within a gravel pit named Piltdown. The discovery of a lifetime was uncovered by Dawson in 1912, when he unearthed what appeared to be an ancient human jawbone which was similar to an apes jawbone but contained teeth that were worn down in relation to current human teeth. This was the supposed revelation of the oldest human remains had been found in England and which was dubbed ‘Piltdown Man’. This had a positive effect on the scientific community as it supported the theory of evolution as Woodward proposed that the “Piltdown Man was the missing link between apes and humans, specifically the theory of the human development of big brains before the ability to walk upright as presented by Arthur Keith. Scientist later discovered that the opposite is true in regards to human development. Remains of, pre-existing to “Piltdown Man”, humans occurred during the 1920’s, which began contradictory notions regarding the validity of Woodward’s discovery. 1949 forgery was suspected, greatly due to the fluorine absorption test, which measured the fluorine content giving an estimated dating analysis of 100,000 years old. Years later (1953), the hoax itself was discovered indefinitely, when precise dating tests accurately established that the jawbone was less than 100 years old. The teeth and jawbone, even artificial staining showed signs that they had been tampered with, making it fit uniformly to a human skull head.

Wishful thinking and a lack of deductive/ critical analysis in the paleontology group proved to be a great human fault of paleontologists of that time. Hopes of a discovery that could produce viable answers clouded the ability to accurately analyze the fossils. More importantly, conformity to the cultural and scientific biases of the time could have negatively affected scientists during the “Piltdown Man” notion was being circulated. Any scientist at the time would have been faced with great reprimand and difficulties if their questioning or oppositional views were made public against such highly noted scientists as Woodward. This affected the scientific process as the testable and falsifiable steps were vastly overlooked, either due to blind hopefulness or blatant fear to speak out against the norm and accepted ‘truths’ at the time, and if there is an obvious example that scientist aren’t using the scientific method, as they should, what other ‘scientific facts’ have also not abided by this method, which could result in false facts? This undermined the entire establishment of scientific validity.

Positive aspects of the scientific process were apparent when appropriate, unbiased testability and falsifiable analysis of the remains were conducted. By accurate date and chemical testing, scientists discovered that the “Piltdown Man” skull was indeed a forgery. Scientists used dating tests such as the fluorine absorption test, chemical tests and microscopic examination in order properly conclude that the fossils were tampered with. The dating methods reveled that the fossil was only about 100 years old and belonged to a female orangutan. The chemical analysis concluded that the fossils had been stained with a chromic acid and iron solution to give them that dated look. Lastly, the microscopic examination provided a closer look at the teeth which showed signs of filing and shaping by a metal file, most likely used to match the canine teeth to resemble and coincide with human teeth and average wear.

I do not believe that it is possible to remove the human factor from science as it is the ability to interact with the environment in a cognitive, physical and social way that certain discoveries, which can later become fully formed theories, are attained. I do however believe that proper identification of particular human factors and their negative effects can be singled out, observed and then properly dealt with, either by removal or modification, in order to preserve the integrity of scientific progress. For example, if testing on a said subject that had to do with, speed or weight, would obviously not be left to faulty and inconsistent human perceptions of calculation, rather it would be calculated with a machine, oriented to get stable and consistent readings, without varying perceptions. This is an example how science has recognized human factor and developed a means around it to produce an analysis with reduced chances of human error.

The lessons that I, as well as everyone in the world can take away from this hoax is that taking presented notions of fact or truth with no additional support facts or personal critique is honestly of no personal gain or value. If anything, you are just lost with information that is of no use, which can later be passed on to other people. This is how ignorance can grow, and intelligence flat line. What if we would’ve taken the theory that the world was flat as sub sequential truth, what if no one ever would’ve looked beyond what was presented? Well, there defiantly wouldn’t be us in this class, taking Philosophy, online right now, would there? We’d be stuck in a repetitive loop of stagnant thought; no motivation to look beyond the unquestioned or look closely what already has been ‘answered’. I believe questions bring about knowledge, not answers, so we do ourselves, and those we share this possible faulty information with, an injustice by taking things and face and surface values rather than relying on the true substance of the matter.

Lynnet Rodriguez