"Just as there is little evidence for El as a separate Israelite god in the era of the Judges, so Asherah is poorly attested as a separate Israelite goddess in this period. Arguments for Asherah as a goddess in this period rest on Judges 6 and elsewhere where she in mentioned with Baal…"

"Only the asherah, the symbol that bears the name of the goddess, is criticized. Furthermore, unlike el and ba'al, aserah does not appear as the theophoric element in Hebrew proper names…

"This conclusion does not address, however, the issue of whether Asherah was distinguished as a separate goddess and consort of Yahweh in the period of the Judges. Indeed, it may be argued that her symbol was part of the cult of Yahweh in this period, but it did not symbolize a goddess. Just as El and Baal and their imagery were adapted to the cult of Yahweh, the asherah was a symbol in Yahwistic cult in this period."

That probably doesn't help you much, but if you're looking for further reading, here's another author and title you could look for. I found the book fascinating, though not exactly light reading.

I work in a field of climate change that is specifically concerned with the consideration of a priori knowledge when we interpret measurements, and as I was reading your post I was visualizing everything you said mathematically. A priori assumptions (at least in my field) are usually necessary to get any interpretation at all from the observations. But the key, really is to start from different a priori assumptions / hypothesis, as well as a corresponding assumption about the *error* in each hypothesis, and then to compare all of your hypothises to the evidence individually.