The Piltdown Man was found in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an
amateur archaeologist. The first piece of skull was supposedly found by a
laborer, who gave it to Dawson. Dawson invited Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, a
geologist of the Natural History Museum in London, to come dig with him at Piltdown.
Together they came upon a jawbone that appeared to be a part of the skull
fragments given to Dawson by the laborer. Woodward, who was initially skeptic,
thought that the jawbone indicated that this was indeed a momentous discovery.
The scientific community and indeed the world reacted in a similar manner: they
saw the Piltdown discoveries as the beginning of a new and exciting road in
evolution. The only thing that was missing was the canine tooth, which cast
slight doubt on the find. Despite this, the Piltdown Man made headlines
worldwide, and was accepted into the scientific community with open arms. Of
course, a year later, a canine matching the exact specifications of the skull
was found on the site. With the discovery of a second Piltdown Man not far
away, most skeptic’s doubts fell away.
Forty years
later, the hoax was revealed, to the shock and awe of the scientists and the
world. The discoveries that had taken place in the rest of the world in the
interim had been in no way similar to the structure of the Piltdown Man. This
significant disparity caused scientists to return to the Piltdown man, utilizing
the more advanced dating technologies that had developed. In the 1940s, the
scientist Kenneth Oakley tested the bones using his invented "fluorine method" by measuring the fluorine deposits in
them (which can collect in calcium-rich organic matter) and found out that while they contained similar amounts of fluorine, they
were much, much younger than had been insinuated by Dawson. Joseph Wiener and
Wilfrid Le Gros Clark worked with Oakley to test and observe the Piltdown specimen
further. After having noticed that the teeth looked like they had been shaved down, the scientists decided to do more tests. Using chemical tests that included an improved fluorine test, these scientists found out that not only were the jawbone and the skull not fossilized, but they were not even part of the same species (let alone the same age). In addition, the bones had been dyed to match
the surrounding sediments at the Piltdown site.
The
Piltdown Man had been thought genuine for forty years—and for this reason, the
revelation that it was fake was very difficult for many scientists to take.
Quite a few had built significant aspects of their research on Dawson’s
findings, and the fact that they had wasted their time on a false “missing
link” was, as Miles Russell put it, “horrifically embarrassing.” Science is in
many ways a constant mystery, and the false clue disrupted the work of
scientists who could have been working on legitimate specimens that could have led them down a valid path.
At the time the Piltdown Man was “discovered,” proper
scientific method was not as standardized as it is today. A standardized procedure
would have enforced better checks on Dawson and his partners. If there had been
a procedural structure for ensuring the validity of their discovery, this may
not have happened (despite the lack of proper dating technology, a close look
at the teeth by an expert scientist could have easily revealed that they were
filed down). However, a lack of adequate
scientific method and a lack of proper dating technology were not the only
reasons Piltdown Man was thought to be legitimate for so long.
One very
important aspect of human fault in the Piltdown Hoax is the pride of the
British scientists involved (including Woodward), and of the Natural History
Museum, at finally getting in on the evolutionary game. Indeed they had
produced Darwin and his theories, but most of the discoveries of early man had
been on other continents. When they were presented with their share of
fossilized early man, it would not have been in their best interest to examine
it from every angle and try to disprove its legitimacy (as is done to modern
hypotheses). Additionally, the Natural History Museum showcased their erroneous
pride by being overly strict in terms of who they allowed examine the skull.
In the same
way, trust can be a fault in this scenario. Scientists must question everything
in order to advance their findings. When it was first discovered, scientists
worldwide, by trusting that the Piltdown Man was real and not actually speaking
out with skepticism, allowed for the hoax to continue. In science, a measured
amount of skepticism is productive.
One of the main aspects of the scientific method
is that new knowledge needs to be based on empirical (measurable) data. The initial fluorine test conducted by Oakley was exactly that—the results of the test are
scientific measurements that reveal new information. The initial skepticism, though, which pushed
Oakley to test the Piltdown Man, was in of itself a questioning of a
“hypothesis” which is another pillar of the scientific method. All of the work
that went into looking at the Piltdown Man more closely was to disprove and challenge the information set up by Dawson. Likewise, the observation of the teeth by Joseph Wiener led the two men to conduct the more advanced chemical tests which exposed the whole thing as a fraud. The observation of phenomena is a key aspect early in the order of the scientific method as well. Although this might be
a stretch, reproducibility, another key aspect of the scientific method, could
be what caused Oakley’s skepticism in the first place. Nowhere in the entire
world had there been a skeleton resembling the Piltdown Man, therefore his
“reproducibility,” if you will, was called into question. Although the two
concepts are divergent, they have the same basic structure to them—a lack of
replicated evidence during testing (if “testing” can be applied here to the discovery
of other early hominins) rings a bell of falsity.
I think the human factor in science is quite
important. Although error is a human inevitability, humans also have the
capacity to learn from their mistakes. In my opinion, one of the most beautiful
aspects of humanity is our thirst for knowledge. Removing the human element
from science by, perhaps, training robots to make our discoveries for us would
be pointless, I think, not the least because machines also have the capacity
for error. The driving force behind science is curiosity, and imagination. As
humans we have the drive of curiosity and a capacity for inventing and
considering boundless possibilities. Even if we can theoretically engineer a
robot with the same capacity for imagination, I don’t think the human thirst
for knowledge can ever be replicated.
Always confirm that the information you’re receiving is from
a reputable source. A good example of this is the internet—it is an incredibly
easy tool to use in terms of information retrieval, but it is utterly useless
if one believes everything on the internet is true. There are several websites
dedicated to the idea that dolphins and whales can help you time travel.
Information from the internet must always be taken with a grain of salt. It is
generally a good thing, I think, to address the world with skepticism—that way
one can avoid the pitfalls of naiveté and gullibility.
