Science Proves Truth....

In the early 1900’s an amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson was given a discovery of an ancient human skull that was said to of been found in Sussex, a county in SE England. Many scientists believed this site to be of a million years old respectively. The origin of the skull was in a Pleistocene bed and believed by Dawson to hold many artifacts and fossils of ancient times. Since other fossils of “early men” were discovered in neighboring countries, but none ever found in England, scientist swarmed to the news. Even more so, if this was ancient remains than it was more likely that this ancestor was the oldest to of been discovered to date. After meeting a well known geologist from England named Sir Arthur Smith Woodward at the Natural History Museum, Dawson invited him to join on his search for more fossils and remains to this particular skull. This was a great adventure and historical revealing in paleontology. During a dig up a jaw bone was discovered and appeared to be part of the original skull. This jawbone had ape like characteristics but the teeth were more human, being the dentition was more flat. Scientist believe they found the missing link between humans and apes. In December 1912 the Royal Geological Society awarded the men and made an announcement about the discovery and what it could mean.Some forty years later, in 1953 the announcement came that this was a hoax, all a ploy. The old “Englishmen” that was discovered was not real at all. Scientist were in uproar, as well as the citizens across the globe. How could people of been fooled for so long? Has science failed us into believers of falsehood?

 Human fault that comes into play is the eagerness for society as a whole to want to discover ancient remains that have never been discovered in this part of the world. An ancient English ancestor is remarkable truth and the belief that this may have been the missing link excited the communities. Other human faults are ego (bcoming notorized and praised for discovery), pride, rivaling (as we mentioned the rivalry between Europe and other countries finding ancient fossils), and ambition (scientist are ambitious to get their name on something, to declare proof, to be recognized in a notorious manner).

 The positive aspects about the scientific process are that science itself was able to prove the authenticity of these remains, along side with chemistry. Since the time of the Piltdown man, there was not tools or chemicals known yet to credit or not credit the reamains found. Four decades later, Dr. Kenneth Oakley performed a chemical test and revealed that the skull itself had been many years younger than originally proposed. The nitrogen content was tested and proved to not be of significant age, in fact, a hundred years, but not thousands, and most definitely not millions of years primitive. They also began to discover that the skull was stained to give the resemblance of aging, the teeth were filed down, and the canine tooth that was found later was in fact painted and poorly constructed. Scientist used an orangutans jawbone, which is what we believe was used for the “old Englishmen”. It matches accurately. People and scientist alike began to realize that scientific method is beneficial and science can prove or disprove claims/theories. Science was victorious in revealing truth once again. 

 I do not think it is possible to remove the human factor from science. Humans are after all who mainly is discovering,asking the questions, presenting facts or fiction, and the human factor is important for exploration. I would not want to remove humans from science as long as the scientific methods are being presented and information is enlightened with a reasoning that can be tested, I see no reason to remove the human factor from science.

 I think the question on what life lesson could I take from this was actually answered within your question. Do not take anything at face value and most definitely not from an unreliable source. It seems that whatever the information may be, we need to do our own analysis, whether scientifically or otherwise before accepting what one says. There are methods in science as well as in nature to falsify or prove a theory.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form