CRMinf example for I3 Inference Logic and I5 Inference Making.J3 applied: I3 Inference Logic

Post by Martin Doerr (16 November 2024) -example for I3 Inference Logic

Here two related example for I3 Inference Logic in CRMinf:

•  The statement ”People buried with arms or weapons are mostly male”

[as, e.g., used by Prof. Alessandro Mandolesi for a first estimation of the gender of the skeleton on the left bench in La Tomba dell'Aryballos sospeso as provided to the press on the 21th of September 2013 (I2) (Squires 2013)]

 Using the expression of the Protuberantia occipitalis externa of a skull for gender estimation.

• [“The external occipital protuberance provides an origin site for the descending part of trapezius muscle and an attachment site for the nuchal ligament. It is more pronounced in males than females.” (https://www.elsevier.com/resources/anatomy/skeletal-system/axial-skelet…) ]

The latter probably being one of the criteria Prof. Alessandro Mandolesi's team applied in the osteological analysis, that lead soon after to the revision and academically published statement about the gender of the said skeleton, being female.

Best,

Martin

Post by Martin Doerr (16 November 2024) --example for I5 Inference Making. J3 applied: I3 Inference Logic

Dear All,

....and for I5 Inference Making.J3 applied: I3 Inference Logic:

•  The gender classification of the skeleton on the left bench in La Tomba dell'Aryballos sospeso provided to the press by Prof. Alessandro Mandolesi on the 21th of September 2013 applied (E17, I5) The statement ”People buried with arms or weapons are mostly male” (Squires 2013)

I'd like to stress that this example is by no means meant to criticize in any way the scientific quality of the much esteemed team of Prof. Mandolesi.  Also, such an initial classification must not be interpreted as an example of alleged "subjectivity" or "bias" of archaeological research.

As the philosopher James Ladyman, scientific realism, defends, all empirical research is an "Inference to the Best Explanation", which has the potential for gradually approximating reality better and better. Statistically, the statement ”People buried with arms or weapons are mostly male” is objective. Equally objective are the criteria of osteological analysis, with their own, smaller error margins, and DNA even better. Such progression to more and more reliable evidence is valid and everyday scientific practice. Not always is the best evidence available or affordable.

The problem occurs, when the premises and "inference logic" of a conclusion are not made clear and are not documented, when statements in the press taken for absolute, or on the other side, when knowledge revision and the probabilities of errors in the "Best Explanation" are taken for ignorance of the scientists, and finally are exploited in unscientific counter theories using much weaker forms of evidence.

I am very glad and thankful to Prof. Mandolesi's team that we have found this simple public example of knowledge revision. Unfortunately, the everyday practice of such knowledge revision is mostly carefully hidden in the Labs, pretending to the outside at any time to produce only "true" results. On the other side, the big knowledge revisions of our time are too complex to be used as a simple example in this model.

Comments welcome

All the best,

Martin