Oh I don’t...ok that’s good to know.
“...….
From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together”. In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.
In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.
………..”
Looks to me that the above is a good example of the scientific method in action!
>>Looks to me that the above is a good example of the scientific method in action!<<
Yep. Is this friendly fiof re? My point was that the Scientific Method exposed Piltdown Man as a sham (which any and every theological/philosophical method cannot).
I think we agree. But my uncle with the lopsided backside and the fur on the small his back might BE Piltdown Man. Or he just fugly.