Logic issues

[Torsten]

A typical issue is that evidence is not weighted on its objective strength, but on whether it is favourable or unfavourable to one's thoughts.

This issue is indeed very common, especially if it comes to an undeciphered writing system.

The problem to decipher an unknown writing system is often underrated (see J. Gelb in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., 1975). 

The human instinct is to look for meaning even if there is none. The intuitive way to decipher an unknown writing system is therefore to handle it like something we already know. Isn't it tempting to try to guess the language and to interpret some meaning into the symbols? Unfortunately it is only necessary to invent a language and anything can mean anything. It we guess that the language is some form of proto-latin, a combination of Mesoamerican languages, an unknown Turkish dialect, or an unknown constructed language every guess works. It only depends on the will and imagination of the decipherer if an error is explained away or not. Therefore the trial and error method has to be avoided.

Instead of that, a systematic approach to decipher an unknown writing system using an unknown language is necessary. For doing so we must describe the most characteristic properties and determine typical patterns. Only if we understand the writing system this will tell us something about the language (see for instance the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Therefore, not only the solution itself but also the way of deciphering an unknown script is interesting and important. To ask for the way the solution was reached should be a first test to a decipherment attempt. Researchers using the trial and error method are unable to explain how the writing system works. Moreover they have to admit that they were only guessing.