[Aztlan] Interpretation not = = evidence

Tue Jun 24 14:03:43 CDT 2008

Lloyd,

I have worked very hard to lay the evidence out on the table for 1) the
astronomical preoccupations of the Izapans as evidenced by the
archaeoastronomical setting of their carved monuments. All of this
involves alignment data, orientations, and well-argued and documented
iconography that reflects astronomy. 2) showing how the astronomical
features involved in the alignment of the solstice sun with the dark
rift in the Milky Way are utilized prominently in many Maya traditions.
http://www.alignment2012.com/ballcourt-schematic-and-description.html  

Would you allow into the discussion, as a piece of evidence, the
empirical alignment of, say, the Izapan ballcourt   to the rise point of
the December solstice sun? If that can be identified as evidence then we
can move the discussion forward. If it can't please explain why. 

By the way, any of you can feel free to address me directly rather than
as an outside third-person object of contemplation.

I find the critiques against my work unconvincing because the evidence
that I bring to the table is not directly addressed. It's hard for me to
not perceive this as a basically unfair tactic of some kind, intended or
not. Convince me I am wrong, don't just say I am wrong. I've studied the
situation at Izapa and the larger context it plays in Mesoamerican
history for many years now. We are now looking at new breakthrough
material that comes from Mayanists you are less likely to quickly
dismiss, for an awareness of the precession of the equinoxes that is
built into the very structure of the Long count calendar. It's not my
place to announce that. But what it means is that there was a level of
astronomical sophistication present at the dawn of the Long Count, and
this mitigates many of the critiques against my work. Is this new
information absolutely unassailable 100% fact? No, but it's in the realm
of high probability. I'll refrain from reiterating the long symphony of
my other arguments as I have in the past.   

However, you write: "There is no direct evidence on Tortuguero Monument
6 for a repeating sequence
of 13 Baktuns" 

Given the already known Creation texts that point to 3114 BC, the use of
the 13-baktun end point on 2012 as a Creation event on Tortuguero
Monument 6 demonstrates that Creation events replay every 13 baktuns.
You may be picking nits where there are none to pick. Please don't ask
me to logically prove that I have two legs! I'm amazed we can be at such
odds.

The potentially humorous (although apparently not, in fact, humorous)
analogy I drew to the lack of direct evidence that Paleolithic humans
were having sex was intended to illustrate the silliness of the kind of
logic that is often used to deconstruct and disprove rational arguments.
This betrays an unwillingness to engage the evidence presented. For
example, this morning I emailed the simple question: "Is the fact that
13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 3 Kankin falls on a solstice evidence of anything?"
This is probably by now a much rehashed topic, and I have a few dozen
relevant write-ups on it on my website, but what's the point. Again, I
think the issue here is not standards of evidence but standards of
consensus.

John Major Jenkins

-----Original Message-----
From: ECOLING at aol.com [mailto:ECOLING at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:26 AM
To: kahib at ix.netcom.com; aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: Interpretation not = = evidence

I am in complete agreement with what Jorge Perez de Lara has written.

The aspect of John Major Jenkins's arguments that I find most troubling
is when he seems to exempt himself from a need for evidence.
I think this has by now become clear in the recent exchanges on Aztlan.

Yes, it is *of course* true that later Maya may have retained only a
vague
memory of earlier cosmology (or name the domain of ideas which you
prefer).
But if they do not, then one must admit that the argument for any
hypothesis
becomes much more difficult.  One cannot assume data or evidence that
one
wants simply on the grounds that much has been lost.  Nor (for those who
are excessively narrow in what they will consider) can one assume that
what we do not now have evidence for did not exist.  Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.  John Major Jenkins likes the second part,
but rejects the first part, I think because he is so wedded to his
conclusion.
He would be more effective if he could understand and accept why many
people find him unconvincing, if he could understand the many places
in which he substitutes what he wants to believe for what is actually
there.

Like the philosophers' puzzles of the hourglass vs. the two facing
heads,
or the duck vs. the rabbit, it is often impossible to see the other view
once
one has fastened on one view.  This is especially true in many fields of
detective work and discovery of the past.

He writes:

<<A repeating sequence of 13-baktuns is attested by Tortuguero Monument
6. 
This can be branded an anomaly, or it can be called evidence.>>

He is here reading his *conclusion* into what he calls the data or
evidence.
There is no direct evidence on Tortuguero Monument 6 for a repeating
sequence
of 13 Baktuns.  To claim that is is simply not being forthright about
the facts.
There is data which may be *interpreted* as a part of an
argument that the Maya believed in that, but the argument must then
depend
on other evidence.  It must be kept in mind that the Tortuguero
reference
to the future is, as of now, unique in being 13.0.0.0.0 in the future.
This is could be an aberration.  It would be folly to assume it is an
aberration,
but also folly to not keep that possibility in mind.  John Major Jenkins

*wants* it to be the norm (despite it being a minority of one), so he
assumes it is.  Either assumption, that it is an aberration or that it
is the norm,
is an assumtpion.  Neither is simple evidence.

To do good detective work on the past, it helps to not need more
certainty
than the facts can provide.  Many irrational beliefs reflect a need for
great certainty.

The parody on whether Paleolithic humans were having sex is just that,
a parody.  It is obvious logic in this case that they did.  
But that is irrelevant to our arguments. The obvious logic about sex in
no way 
either weakens or strengthens John's arguments on a completely different
topic.
It is disturbing is that John treats these two instances of reasoning
as the same.

John's repeated emphasis on iconography is not simply to get people
to use it more (which they certainly should).  Rather, he wants people
to
accept *his interpretation* of iconography as if it were simple direct
fact.
His interpretations are not facts.  He is happy to take that position 
regarding interpretations by others with which he does not agree.
But he seems unwilling to have the same standards applied to his own
hypotheses.

None of which has any bearing directly on whether any of his
hypotheses are *valid* or *wrong*.  As I said, it is good that we
have multiple perspectives.  I really mean that.  I would really hate to
miss
seeing some hypothesis which may be *valid* just because John Major
Jenkins's argumentation has big gaps.  We badly need someone to cull
out the real facts and patterns he is concerned with, and show how far
we can and cannot go from evidence, without the enormous burden of
having to wade through all of his preferred assumptions and mixture
of fact with conjecture.

I have made myself just as unwelcome with a famous archaeoastronomer
years ago for arguing that the Maya may very well have known about
precession even if we cannot yet prove it.  John presumably would like
me then for that.  It is an example of the point that absence of
evidence
yet discovered is not evidence of absence of a phenomenon.
(As an aside, I think we may now be closer to having at least
suggestive clues on precession because of some work by Barbara Macleod.)

Here I must argue exactly the same for John Major Jenkins's hypotheses,
some of which may be valid even if we cannot yet prove them.

But standards of evidence and proof are very different from 
making assumptions and treating hypotheses consistent with
one's preferred assumptions as if they were simple facts.

Best wishes,
Lloyd

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683

**************
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used
cars.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)