Thank you for your interesting post. I hope you will agree your guidelines belong in the Philosophy of Science side of the house because they are not addressing a scientific question but rather the question of how science should be done.
I would like to reciprocate and offer my suggestions for how philosophy of science should be done by encouraging you to make explicit your assumptions and reasoning for why your approach to science is the proper approach. Relying upon your position as an accomplished archaeologist to suggest that we should accept your implicit assumptions and rationale without a thorough examination is not in keeping with the objectives of the Institute.
My rationale for this approach to philosophy of science is that our assumptions and conclusions should be made explicit and supported by logical arguments because I think that methodology reduces the risk of error and I believe but cannot prove it is more likely that we can collectively make progress and achieve results that are correct or at least less incorrect, in the sense of corresponding to objective reality, if such a thing exists.
We are happy to fund or otherwise support efforts by you or anyone else to address these points or to put forward alternative approaches to how science or philosophy of science should be done. There is also the unaddressed question whether the same methodology should necessarily apply to social sciences, such as archaeology, and to physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry, which are more relevant to our current projects.
To the extent it is helpful to clarify the objectives and philosophical underpinings of our initial set for projects, we are seeking to collect and publicly disseminate a database of reliable, verifiable empirical datapoints about certain planets and moons, not in order to advance a particular hypothesis, thesis or analytical methodology but in order to provide a common set of data for me and others to develop and test hypotheses, theories and analytical methodologies in the future.
As for my principal philosophical assumptions, they are that the collected datapoints will remain constant over time and that different persons can agree as to what those datapoints are. My rationale is that I and from what I can gather others have found through past experience that those basic propositions have apparently held true. As a result, we will assume that is correct as to the past and will continue to be correct in the future and the database therefore will represent a source of agreed upon, consistent empirical data.
In this regard, once we begin to publish such data, we will offer generous rewards to anyone who finds mistakes in the database so that it will be as error free as possible.