Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[YoursTrue]

What is the point of this post?

That many accept what is taught as true, when in fact in this case, it was a hoax.

 

[YoursTrue]

What a wonderful example of the scientific method in action! The skeptical nature of the method ensures that hoaxes such as this will be vigorously questioned and tested and eventually exposed for the fraudulent science that it is. Thanks for sharing.

It took a while for the scientific community to figure this out and change the outcome. For decades it was accepted as true by the establishment. According to the wikipedia article it gets even better!
"The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[39]"
And the best is that:
"The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.[40]"
Wow. Live and learn. My point is not that it was a hoax only, but that minds of people (not birds and chimpanzees) can be misled by -- the -- scientific community and/or posits. Which do not always have to be a hoax like the Piltdown man was, but nevertheless the supposition or categorizing changed later.

 

[F1fan]

That many accept what is taught as true, when in fact in this case, it was a hoax.

Just like at church. Is that what you mean?

 

[Heyo]

Let's see:
The Oscillating model

Simulation model...the universe according to quantum physics may be nothing like how it appears to human observers. It might be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, or it could be a digital simulation running on a vast computer.

There's a steady state model also.

A big bounce model, which sounds like a fashion show for chubby women.

An electric light orchestra, I mean electric universe model ...

Black hole origin theory




Eternal Inflation theory...

Which are all either unscientific fringe models or variations of the BB.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It took a while for the scientific community to figure this out and change the outcome. For decades it was accepted as true by the establishment. According to the wikipedia article it gets even better!
"The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[39]"
And the best is that:
"The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.[40]"
Wow. Live and learn. My point is not that it was a hoax only, but that minds of people (not birds and chimpanzees) can be misled by -- the -- scientific community and/or posits. Which do not always have to be a hoax like the Piltdown man was, but nevertheless the supposition or categorizing changed later.

Indeed, bad science can be devastating for our acquisition of knowledge, which is why it's so important that the scientific method be rigorously followed and established ideas constantly questioned and tested in new ways. Fortunately the ToE is undoubtedly the most rigorously questioned and tested scientific theory that's ever been proposed. And even after hoaxes and decades of vigorous opposition it's continued to endure the test of time.

 

[danieldemol]

The point is not whether the so-called fact of evolution was in question. What is the issue is that the idea that some things are promoted and taught as fact or true when, in fact, these so-called facts change, either by discovery of the first 'fact' being untrue, yet taught for quite a while as true, or in this case, as being fraudulent.

One can't reasonably say that because one alleged fact turned out to be untrue, that other facts are untrue. Otherwise we could claim that because Piltdown man was taught as true the roundness of the earth is false, which is a demonstrably false claim.

So you see we still have to test each claim on it's individual merits.

So you have to provide evidence that can't be explained by evolution, and so far you have none.

In my opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence

Evidence would be the confirmation of the predictions through testing.

For example, the theory predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation.
This radiation was then discovered and found to be exactly like the theory predicted it would be.
Thus said radiation is evidence of big bang theory.

Derp-di-derp-derp.

I have no problem with the BB per say but at least you could admit that it's just one theory among many held by scientists.

"theory". I don't think you understand what this word means in scientific context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No... that would be human beings.

Do you agree that humans are mammals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's see:
The Oscillating model

Simulation model...the universe according to quantum physics may be nothing like how it appears to human observers. It might be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, or it could be a digital simulation running on a vast computer.

There's a steady state model also.

A big bounce model, which sounds like a fashion show for chubby women.

An electric light orchestra, I mean electric universe model ...

Black hole origin theory




Eternal Inflation theory...

For crying out loud............................................................

You have succesfully stated models that are:
- long abandoned and have been replaced by BB theory
- not in contradiction with BB theory and which deal with OTHER things
- crackpot ideas that are nothing but pseudo-science that no scientist takes seriously. It's like offering astrology as an "alternative" to astronomy. Absurd.


Your ignorance is showing again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That many accept what is taught as true, when in fact in this case, it was a hoax.

So?

Any thing that is being believed can be a hoax.
The real question is if there are safeguard in place to eventually expose hoaxes as hoaxes.

And in the case of science, clearly that is so.

What safeguards does religion have to protect itself against hoaxes?

 

[exchemist]

That many accept what is taught as true, when in fact in this case, it was a hoax.

I don't follow. Nobody is taught Piltdown Man is true. Science worked out the hoax decades ago, thanks to advances in dating techniques.

It wasn't the first hoax and there have been others since. In fact, all reported science findings are treated as provisional until corroborated. Plenty of interpretations are found later to be wrong, even if actual hoaxes are relatively uncommon. Anyone studying science is aware of this.

It is only people who think science is taught like holy scripture, i.e. as unassailably true in very respect, by definition, that seem to think this hoax somehow undermines science as a discipline. History shows that science is self-correcting, but it can take time for errors to be put straight and dead ends abandoned.

There is nothing new or surprising here.

 

[Valjean]

See, that's another reason why we're not apes. Anyway I won't go into it now, have a good night. One thing in favor of gorillas and chimpanzees, etc. -- they are not burdened down with silly reasoning. Such as inventing theories and categories.

Do you know what a strawman is?
You're misrepresenting the argument from science.. You're using a colloquial, value-laden, social definition of "ape." This is not the definition we're working from. We're arguing than humans are apes biologically, not socially.

 

[Valjean]

The point is not whether the so-called fact of evolution was in question. What is the issue is that the idea that some things are promoted and taught as fact or true when, in fact, these so-called facts change, either by discovery of the first 'fact' being untrue, yet taught for quite a while as true, or in this case, as being fraudulent.

The established facts are taught as facts. The various areas of research, and theorems, are taught as ongoing subjects under research, and as competing theorems.

Our knowledge is growing. Education must reflect this.

Education is not catechism or doctrine. It's not indoctrination. Only religion claims eternal and unchanging truth. This is not a strength.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Human... A little lower than angels.

What's an angel? Where can I find one?
It better not just be a few bone fragments either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yup, other scientists figured out it was a hoax. Which, of course, was taught as truth for many years. But that's ok. The prejudice as truthfully expressed in the last paragraph really pulls the reins in on this. "hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence."
I guess no one made the effort to test the evidence for a while.

Well, it wasn't somebody who didn't understand what they were talking about, trolling the internet with outdated talking points who figured it out, now was it?
It was scientists. Using science. The same ones you denigrate here every day.

 

[viole]

Anyway I won't go into it now, have a good night.

Wise decision.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Human... A little lower than angels.

You mean (great apes) with wings?

ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is the issue is that the idea that some things are promoted and taught as fact or true when, in fact, these so-called facts change, either by discovery of the first 'fact' being untrue, yet taught for quite a while as true, or in this case, as being fraudulent.

Yes, but that's a trivially true fact of life. People lie. That's common knowledge.

I think people are looking for you to say explicitly what they think you believe, which belief they assume motivated you to discuss scientific fraud, and that is, if this claim can be fraudulent, then all of science or significant parts of it may well be fraudulent by extension. It's the same tactic tried in climate science - identify some doctored data somewhere and none of it can be believed.

If that's not your point or purpose, perhaps you can say what it was beyond merely reminding us that this hoax had been perpetrated, which fact I expect everybody or almost everybody reading along already knew.

How about with religion? If a fraudulent act by a theist were uncovered, like phony faith healing, should the church be disbelieved? If your answer is no, then you understand the disinterest in this Piltdown fraud.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You mean (great apes) with wings?

ciao

- viole

No, those are only in comic books.
I mean Spirit beings created by God who are present, but not visible generally.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, those are only in comic books.
I mean Spirit beings created by God who are present, but not visible generally.

How does anyone know they're "present?"