SoylentNews

Analysis of Bones Discovered in 1940 Concludes They Are of Amelia Earhart

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 11 2018, @08:18AM   
from the we-had-her-all-along dept.

takyon writes:

Amelia Earhart: Island bones 'likely' belonged to famed pilot

Bones discovered on a Pacific island in 1940 are "likely" to be those of famed pilot Amelia Earhart, according to a US peer reviewed science journal. Earhart, her plane, and her navigator vanished without a trace in 1937 over the Pacific Ocean. Many theories have sought to explain her disappearance.

But a new study published in Forensic Anthropology claims these bones prove she died as an island castaway. The report claims they are a 99% match, despite an earlier conclusion.

The study, titled Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones, was first published by the University of Florida and conducted by Professor Richard Jantz from the University of Tennessee. It disputes that the remains found on the eastern Pacific island of Nikumaroro - about 1,800 miles (2,900km) southwest of Hawaii - belonged to a man, as a researcher had determined in 1941.

Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones (open, DOI: 10.5744/fa.2018.0009) (DX)

---

Original Submission

• Re:Could both be right? (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 11 2018, @06:32PM

  by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Sunday March 11 2018, @06:32PM (#650999) Homepage Journal

  The statement is only useful for keeping possibilities open. There is nothing conclusive in the study. To paraphrase them, "We think the bones are nearly the correct measurement to have been Amelia."

  Science is *never* conclusive. Scientific theories must be falsifiable, but they are never conclusively verified. Rather, as more observations/evidence are gathered, a theory is either falsified (and must be thrown out or modified) or we discover that the theory more closely *approximates* the universe.

  Which is why (presumably based on actual data) scientists *always* use percentages to describe accuracy. Which is why I'm disappointed that the journal article is unavailable, as I'd like to better understand the methods of analysis to better understand how these folks arrived at their findings.

  E.g., the *fact* of gravity should not be confused with the *theory* of gravity. The latter predicts the effects of the former with great precision, but they are not the same thing.

  All of science works this way, including forensic anthropology.

  Why is it that so many adults seem unfamiliar with the scientific method? It's a little disheartening.

  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3