The Piltdown Hoax

            The Piltdown Man hoax initially began in 1912 with Charles Dawson’s supposed discovery of fossilized early human remains in Piltdown, England. Arthur Smith Woodward worked alongside Dawson upon his invitation to the site of the dig and there he was able to gather fragments of skull, which were submitted to his department of the British natural history museum. After Dawson’s death, no further fossils were found at the Piltdown site. Later discoveries of early remains in Asia and Africa seemed to contradict the findings at Piltdown. They did not paint the portrait of human evolution as occurring in a fashion consistent with the remains found by Dawson. In 1940, dating using fluoride estimated the Piltdown fossils to be only about 100,000, a very young age for the type of fossils discovered. Finally, in 1953, even more precise dating technology was available and the Piltdown Man was confirmed to be a hoax. The fossils had been altered with staining and filing to accomplish the ruse.

            One human fault that contributed to this famous hoax was pride. Dawson was interested in his own reputation and personal success, as was Woodward with the reputation of his department. Instead of being interested in furthering their profession, these scientists were self-seeking and out to prove their own value rather than the value of their discoveries to actual reality. Selfishness and pride got in the way of Dawson and Woodward’s objectivity and led to bad decision-making and a lack of foresight as to how their elaborate scheme would affect the scientific community as a whole. However, while bad science created the Piltdown mess, good science resolved it and exposed it as a hoax.

The first critical step of the scientific method involved in exposing the hoax was the asking of questions. The film assigned notes that many scientists of Dawson and Woodward’s era were scared to speak up even if they were reluctant to accept the veracity of the Piltdown man. When the technology became available to actually resolve the questions some scientists had in their minds about authenticity, it was used properly to date the fossils and provide a basis for further explanation. Background research was conducted on the origin of the fossils, a hypothesis was created questioning the dates of the fossils, and then fluoride dating was conducted in order to test the hypothesis. Importantly, the results were communicated to the rest of the scientific community, and the hoax was finally able to be debunked, allowing efforts at researching evolution to be directly properly instead of wasting valuable time and money on rabbit trails created by the ruse.

The “human factor” in science is important in that it guides the questions that are asked. Without human curiosity, the scientific method could not even begin; human interest and the quest for knowledge are therefore undoubtedly critical factors in the advancement of science. However, once scientists have advanced past the preliminary questioning phase of the scientific method, it is important to then step back and let the data do the talking. The hypothesis testing should be a totally, completely objective process whose outcomes should have had no interference by the biases or hopes of the scientists doing the testing. Additionally, I think it’s important that scientists not simply look for evidence that supports their claims, but instead acknowledge all test results and subject their hypothesis to the most thorough testing possible. While advances in technology would almost certainly prevent a 40-year hoax like the Piltdown Man from happening again, it is possible to imagine that data could be altered or concealed, leading to a perhaps less dramatic, but potentially just as serious, false conclusion.

Of course, the Piltdown Man story serves as an important reminder to always, always, always check your sources! Had more scientists asked questions about the find instead of assuming the best about the scientists reporting their data, the hoax might not have been as lastingly successful as it was. And, if more scientists had set aside their hope for an early British human fossil find, there would likely have been a greater willingness to investigate the remains from the outset. It is clearly important never to blindly assume the source you're using is accurate without verifying the data yourself, or ensuring that the origin of the material is reputable and preferably academic in nature (depending on the type of research being conducted). It's important to be reminded of this frequently, especially in an age where much research is conducted using the internet, a medium with wide access and high anonymity.