Piltdown paradoxically presents robustness of science

It is 100 years since one of the great scientific hoaxes was perpetrated. In 1912, 50+ years after the publication of Darwin's seminal 'Origin of Secies' there were paeleo-anthropologists who were desperate to find the missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. so desperate in fact that if an unscrupulous 'scientist' were to come along and present them with some manufactured 'evidence' they would be all too willing to believe him. Enter Charles Dawson

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248916/Piltdown-Man-The-truth-fraud-revealed-100-years-fooled-world.html

He 'found' the skull of an ancestor with both human and primate characteristics in situ in the gravel beds near Piltdwon alongside much sought evidence of tool use by this species. It was a sensation and for 50 or so years seemed to have proved that missing link. Dawson however was a dubious character, an amateur who inveigled his way into scientific societies through amazing discoveries, a good proportion of which later proved to be fake.

At the time there were those who were sceptical but they were swept to one side by the excitement of the find, the prestige it brought to British paeleo-anthropology and the sheer desire of so may to confirm a find that was almost too good to be true.

Any scientist will tell you however if it seems too good to be true then it probably is just that; too good to be true. Every piece of evidence must be painstakingly analysed. Your own theories and desires for certain conclusions to be reached must be put to one side. If the evidence proves you wrong that is still a valuable conclusion and you have learnt something worthwhile and modify your approach/opinion.

It is in this latter point that the robustness of science can be seen. There were voices of dissent about Dawson's find and they didn't go away. Eventually the finds were proved to have been faked, teeth filed to look more human, bones stained to match the look of the age of the gravel pits. Dating methods much improved and were applied disproving once and for all the alleged ancientness of the bones.

Science is good like that, you are allowed to be sceptical, to question, to check, to re-check, to bring empiricism and new evidence to bear. Unlike religion there is no dogma, if you prove a previous scientist wrong it does not have to diminish them Einstein's universe view does not match Newton's but we still think they are both great scientists.

So in a way Dawson did us all a favour. whenever you look at the 'evidence' people present then analyse it rationally, bring critical thinking to bear and remember that when we have eliminated all else whatever is left no matter how seemingly impossible must be the truth.