Piltdown Hoax

1) The Piltdown Hoax was based on falsified finds in Sussex county, England that were dubbed the "missing link" and evidence that the origin of man had occurred in England.  This was a deep reflection of the culture of the times, the leading up to World War 1 (or the Great War).  Deeply divisive nationalism sparked an interest in proving the superiority of one's own culture.  Interesting archaeological and paleontological finds had been made in France and in Germany while nothing really had been found in England.  England at this time was still basking in the glow of it's reputation as the British Empire, on which it was said that the sun never set.   The unquantifiable and yet unwavering belief in the superiority of one's own culture in addition to ambition, pride, and the desire to make something of oneself even at the cost of the truth could be considered driving forces here. 

In the early 20th century, a laborer digging in Sussex county, England near the village of Piltdown is said to have found a bone and turned it over to a gentleman in the community who had a reputation as a man of science, an amateur archaeologist with an interest in geology, Charles Dawson.  This was the first of the Piltdown "discoveries." Mr Dawson, in turn, took the discovery to noted local geologist, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward.  Another scientist who was brought into the project was the French priest Teilhard de Chardin. Together, these gentleman are assumed to be central to the hoax, though it's arguable whether they in fact perpetrated it or were victims of it, they are central to the happenings and supposed initial authentication of the find.  

In England the find was lauded as proof of British superiority and the war having started shortly thereafter, it was used as a morale booster.  Outside of Britain, it was considered questionable but due to the war, the questions were put aside.

Eventually scientific questioning became such that testing began, and eventually the authenticity of the find was falsified.  It was shown to be an elaborate hoax.  

2) The human frailties that were most obvious are those of pride, ambition, and nationalism above that of clear headed and objective scientific questioning.  The finds were clearly not as closely scrutinized as they could have been, as the video points out, the tool marks on the teeth would have been clear even under a magnifier glass.  It is evident that those who were involved in the find were either hoping to perpetuate the hoax or were so glad to find a point of nationalistic pride that they overlooked their own scientific scrutiny. Putting one's own ideology ahead of the evidence found through vigorous scientific inquiry (whether these ideologies are secular, theological, nationalistic, or personal) puts all findings in danger as it allows one to make compromises on the inquiry of truth by allowing one to be influenced by one's own beliefs. 

3)  Positive aspects of scientific inquiry including chemical dating processes (differing ones as they advanced), examination of the bones and their surface as well as the nature of the teeth and so forth for tooling marks, signs of legitimate age, and so forth.  Other scientific ideals that were put into play was the unbiased willingness to question the evidence at hand, even if it meant that what one hopes to be true will be disproved by such inquiry.  The willingness to demonstrate a truly open mind and to test what was thought to be known in order to legitimize or falsify it is central to scientific research and inquiry, and it was clearly used here, as was the courage to stand in the way of what was, at that point, years of tradition and assumption. 

4) I am not sure if it's possible to eliminate the human factor but I'm certainly convinced that one wouldn't want to.  It is central to human nature to be passionate and curious.  While our beliefs tend to influence our passions, the curiosity can temper our assumptions and we can set our minds to be, not necessarily objective, but to trust the evidence more than our own belief systems.  I had a teacher many years ago who liked to remind us that our opinions were only as valid as the evidence we had to back them up.  We couldn't just say "well this is what I believe!" without facing a "so what, where's your evidence?"  It was a really valuable lesson.

And I think these are the sort of lessons: those of social community, of questions, of curiosity, of rubbing up against each others ideals in order to sharpen our ideas, that is what makes the human element and contribution essentially priceless.  We are passionate.  We are curious. We do care.  We have to make sure, though, that our pride and our beliefs do not cloud our ability to test our own (and each other's) assumptions.

5) There is an essential difference between beliefs and science.  While our beliefs (and our passions) can guide our inquiry, it is important to remember that we do not have to prove every belief, but that we cannot toss out our beliefs as immutable fact without some sort of evidence to support them or framework within to attempt to falsify or confirm them.  We can believe something to be true and yet know that it's truth is not something we can question or evidence within a scientific framework of inquiry.  I honestly believe that to be okay.  I do believe in God, I do believe in creation.  I also find evolution to have an intense amount of evidence in it's favor and that it's the basis of a lot of our basic assumptions in the biological field.  I have no problem with this, even though to some the two may seem in congruent and contradictory.  My beliefs can influence what I inquire about, but they do not serve as pure and unadulterated evidence of their truth or lack thereof.

It is also essential to not get so caught up in our own pride as to ignore evidence to the contrary of things we believe to be truth.  If some amazing piece of evidence came out tomorrow that negated the overwhelming evidence for divergence within the whiles of evolutionary change, would we have the courage of our convictions about it's evidentiary nature to present it to the public, or would be too afraid to be scrutinized and questioned or laughed at for throwing a question at what is essentially something assumed to be true (and generally, rightfully so)?  Would we have too much pride and not enough courage to question or own assumptions?  Where would we be if Darwin hadn't had the courage to question the establishment?