DeDunking | Call to Action For A Retraction: Lies in the Journal of Astronomy in Culture @DeDunking | Uploaded August 2024 | Updated October 2024, 2 hours ago.
Another Open Letter, this time to the Journal of Astronomy in Culture, formerly the Archaeoastronomy Journal. It contains some issues. Cut n paste the letter below the this address:
gvaldana@chicst.ucsb.edu
BE POLITE!
August 6, 2024
Professor Geraldo Aldana
Editor in Chief
Journal of Astronomy in Culture
Unsourced Claims In Archaeoastronomy Journal Vol XXII
Dear Professor Aldana,
I am writing to inform you of an issue I assume you are unaware of, namely the unsourced claims made by Professor John Hoopes in his article ‘Book Review - The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012 and 2012: Science and Prophecy of the Ancient Maya’ which was presented in Vol XXII of your journal, which was released in 2011. On page 143, the following statement is made:
“The ‘2012 phenomenon’ makes much more sense in the context of astrology than astronomy, as becomes clear from the influence of Dane Rudhyar on New Age prophet and guru Jose’ Arguelles and on John Major Jenkins (who once worked as a professional astrologer).”
In the same column Hoopes wrote:
“His (Rudhyar’s) book ‘The Planetaization of Consciousness helped inspire the first Whole Earth Festival while ‘The Sun is Also a Star’ provided intellectual underpinnings for claims by Arguelles (for whom Rudhyar was a personal mentor) and Jenkins about Ancient Maya concerns with the movements of the sun relative to the Milky Way galaxy.”
Jenkins challenged the idea his work was informed by Rudhyar, and the statement that Jenkins once worked as a professional astrologer. Jenkins wrote to the then editor in chief, Doctor John Carlson, explaining these statements are incorrect, unsupported, and should be retracted. In Jenkins’ words:
“I am not a professional astrologer, never have been and never tried to work as one. An early book of mine ‘Tzolkin’ criticized pop/casual astrology. Hoopes’s intent to defame is evident in the (false) identification of me as a professional astrologer…”
To be clear, there is no question John Major Jenkins’ conclusions on the 2012 phenomenon did in fact qualify as astrology. However, his work on a ‘galactic alignment’ as he called it is based on precession of the equinoxes, an astronomical phenomenon, and is then interpreted through the lens of astrology. This is a subtle, but important distinction. I am sure you do not need informed of the origins of astronomy, and how painstaking observations mingled freely with outlandish cosmological concepts. Jenkins’ work on the astronomy, was astronomy. Hoopes failing to account for the difference in the observations and the cosmology is perhaps excusable, it is reasonable Hoopes applied too ‘broad a brush’ when covering Jenkins’ writings. However, the claim Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer is one that allows for no speculation, this is a factual claim. One that presumably could be supported with evidence. It is not, and it has been challenged. To this day, the claim Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer is unsourced, and remains in print. Jenkins made certain to complain loudly of this before he passed away, and many are aware of this issue.
That is where I hope you will have more wisdom than your predecessor. Please retract the unsupported claims, in particular the claims Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer. In the current social environment, there is no question the trustworthiness of science is more heavily questioned than it has been in decades, perhaps even a few centuries. Many reasons for this could be posited, but one thing is clear: Known falsehoods left in print is one of the most damning things to the public image of a scientist, field of study, or journal. It ‘proves’ the entity in question is untrustworthy. With this in mind, I put it to you there is nothing to be gained by erroneously claiming John Major Jenkins once worked as a professional astrologer, and so much to lose. That statement could be retracted without retracting the article Hoopes wrote, protecting the integrity of the Journal of Astronomy in Culture without ‘losing face’. As a matter of fact, I do believe this could help create a better image. The willingness to admit an error is, after all, an admirable quality. One heavily associated with the scientific method.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these words.
Video covering this falsehood in the Journal of Astronomy in Culture originally:
youtu.be/V87FX4sVgLU
Patreon:
patreon.com/DeDunking
Ko-Fi:
ko-fi.com/dedunking
Instagram:
instagram.com/dedunking
Twitter:
twitter.com/DeDunkingPast
Discord:
discord.gg/4q7njZbzHt
Journal info:
ttps://escholarship.org/uc/jac/editorialboard
More Journal info:
https://www.grace.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/journal.html
Hoopes’ article:
https://www.academia.edu/791535/Book_Review_The_End_of_Time_The_Maya_Mystery_of_2012_Aveni_and_2012_Science_and_Prophecy_of_the_Ancient_Maya_Van_Stone_2009_
Another Open Letter, this time to the Journal of Astronomy in Culture, formerly the Archaeoastronomy Journal. It contains some issues. Cut n paste the letter below the this address:
gvaldana@chicst.ucsb.edu
BE POLITE!
August 6, 2024
Professor Geraldo Aldana
Editor in Chief
Journal of Astronomy in Culture
Unsourced Claims In Archaeoastronomy Journal Vol XXII
Dear Professor Aldana,
I am writing to inform you of an issue I assume you are unaware of, namely the unsourced claims made by Professor John Hoopes in his article ‘Book Review - The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012 and 2012: Science and Prophecy of the Ancient Maya’ which was presented in Vol XXII of your journal, which was released in 2011. On page 143, the following statement is made:
“The ‘2012 phenomenon’ makes much more sense in the context of astrology than astronomy, as becomes clear from the influence of Dane Rudhyar on New Age prophet and guru Jose’ Arguelles and on John Major Jenkins (who once worked as a professional astrologer).”
In the same column Hoopes wrote:
“His (Rudhyar’s) book ‘The Planetaization of Consciousness helped inspire the first Whole Earth Festival while ‘The Sun is Also a Star’ provided intellectual underpinnings for claims by Arguelles (for whom Rudhyar was a personal mentor) and Jenkins about Ancient Maya concerns with the movements of the sun relative to the Milky Way galaxy.”
Jenkins challenged the idea his work was informed by Rudhyar, and the statement that Jenkins once worked as a professional astrologer. Jenkins wrote to the then editor in chief, Doctor John Carlson, explaining these statements are incorrect, unsupported, and should be retracted. In Jenkins’ words:
“I am not a professional astrologer, never have been and never tried to work as one. An early book of mine ‘Tzolkin’ criticized pop/casual astrology. Hoopes’s intent to defame is evident in the (false) identification of me as a professional astrologer…”
To be clear, there is no question John Major Jenkins’ conclusions on the 2012 phenomenon did in fact qualify as astrology. However, his work on a ‘galactic alignment’ as he called it is based on precession of the equinoxes, an astronomical phenomenon, and is then interpreted through the lens of astrology. This is a subtle, but important distinction. I am sure you do not need informed of the origins of astronomy, and how painstaking observations mingled freely with outlandish cosmological concepts. Jenkins’ work on the astronomy, was astronomy. Hoopes failing to account for the difference in the observations and the cosmology is perhaps excusable, it is reasonable Hoopes applied too ‘broad a brush’ when covering Jenkins’ writings. However, the claim Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer is one that allows for no speculation, this is a factual claim. One that presumably could be supported with evidence. It is not, and it has been challenged. To this day, the claim Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer is unsourced, and remains in print. Jenkins made certain to complain loudly of this before he passed away, and many are aware of this issue.
That is where I hope you will have more wisdom than your predecessor. Please retract the unsupported claims, in particular the claims Jenkins worked as a professional astrologer. In the current social environment, there is no question the trustworthiness of science is more heavily questioned than it has been in decades, perhaps even a few centuries. Many reasons for this could be posited, but one thing is clear: Known falsehoods left in print is one of the most damning things to the public image of a scientist, field of study, or journal. It ‘proves’ the entity in question is untrustworthy. With this in mind, I put it to you there is nothing to be gained by erroneously claiming John Major Jenkins once worked as a professional astrologer, and so much to lose. That statement could be retracted without retracting the article Hoopes wrote, protecting the integrity of the Journal of Astronomy in Culture without ‘losing face’. As a matter of fact, I do believe this could help create a better image. The willingness to admit an error is, after all, an admirable quality. One heavily associated with the scientific method.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these words.
Video covering this falsehood in the Journal of Astronomy in Culture originally:
youtu.be/V87FX4sVgLU
Patreon:
patreon.com/DeDunking
Ko-Fi:
ko-fi.com/dedunking
Instagram:
instagram.com/dedunking
Twitter:
twitter.com/DeDunkingPast
Discord:
discord.gg/4q7njZbzHt
Journal info:
ttps://escholarship.org/uc/jac/editorialboard
More Journal info:
https://www.grace.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/journal.html
Hoopes’ article:
https://www.academia.edu/791535/Book_Review_The_End_of_Time_The_Maya_Mystery_of_2012_Aveni_and_2012_Science_and_Prophecy_of_the_Ancient_Maya_Van_Stone_2009_
