Why do people want to pick on Richard Dolan? Is it because he is on a TV show and they are not?
Richard Dolan is still my hero (he knows why)! I have never heard him say a foul word about anyone in ufology, he can get attention in a more honest way than putting others down in order to make himself look smarter or better.
Magonia: Richard Dolan - Scholar or Entertainer?
16 comments:
Um-hmmm... especially given Mr. Harney's failure at such. I wrote:
"I suspect, [Mr. 'arney], you're just another person not liking where the chips are falling... forget the fish."
...Moreover, he should see the next issue of UFO Magazine.
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
I don't even know who this Harney person is. All I know is that I am sick and tired of people in ufology whining about other's research. If they think it should be done another way they should do it that way, not expect others to. As I was told growing up, if you want something done the way you think is right, do it yourself.
Lesley:
I've disagreed - vocally - with Dolan's work as a historian in terms of some of the conclusions that he's drawn, but to criticise him for being an entertainer (and, presumably, earning money) is absurd. It's the same crap that people have been spewing about Stan Friedman for decades, or even sometimes throw my way - as if making money is a bad thing. Dolan is entitled to his kick at the can, like everyone else. Good for him if he can make some money doing something he clearly enjoys doing, so long as he doesn't compromise his views or integrity in the process (and whether I agree with him or not, I believe his opinions are honestly held, unlike some others within ufology).
The way they do it unfortunately obscures the central point that the Magonia guys are making, however - that Dolan's work is not universally lauded, even within ufology. I'm not the only one who's questioned his conclusions, or even his facts. Others - including some leading pro-ETH ufologists - have been less than kind about aspects of his work. Here is just one example:
"Rich Dolan, in his book, has Bob Low of the Colorado UFO Project
being a CIA spook and generally finds spooks under almost every
bed. I pointed out some of his paranoid reasoning in a review of
his book for the International UFO Reporter (CUFOS)."
That's Dick Hall calling Dolan's reasoning "paranoid". See: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/nov/m03-010.shtml
Here's another prominent ufologist, Jerry Cohen, who disagrees with some of Dolan's work (in this case, an article on Allen Hynek):
http://www.cohenufo.org/Hynek/hynk_mole3_cohn.htm
On the other hand, my good pal Mac Tonnies wrote:
""UFOs and the National Security State" is a unparalleled work by an author not afraid to challenge "official history"--even if it means exposing an enigma that defies conventional explanation. I predict that Dolan's study will become a genuine classic; he's raised the bar for scholars of the UFO coverup, and offers a remarkably solid argument to the intellectually fashionable "debunking" establishment. This book does nothing less than redefine the 20th century landscape."
I think Mac is wrong here, but fair enough. We've chatted about it, and respect each other's opinion.
The point is that not everyone is a fan of Dolan's work, and not all of his critics are rabid debunkers, as some people suggest.
Paul
Paul - I don't mind that they disagree, though I do find it sad that Harney can't find one good thing to say about the book. I suppose there are questionable things in there and his conclusions could be questioned, but I think there is a lot more in that book that doesn't fit into those categories. Mostly I don't understand why people involved in ufology enjoy tearing each other down. I will sometimes whine about skeptics, but even that is a waste of my time. To spend time complaining about people I believe to have a sincere interest in ufology, whether I agree with them or not is just silly. I try to save all my complaining for remote viewer, such as Dames and Morton.:-)
Lesley:
Disagreement is healthy, indeed required. It's part of the scholarly process. Dolan knows that as much as anyone else.
My own review of his book, back in May 2005 (see: here) was, to my mind, on the mark about a key point, i.e. I believe Dolan's penchant for conspiracy theorizing that is unsubstantiated by the evidence undermines the trust we can put in the rest of his conclusions. As Jerry Clark once said, ""This is a book that ought to be read with a large saltshaker at hand." (see here). That was good advice.
Dolan's book isn't worthless, but it's also not the Holy Grail that some of his more ardent admirers make it out to be, and neither it nor Dolan himself is immune to constructive criticism, which, as I said, is the very basis of scholarly review.
Paul
Lesley:
FYI - The note by Jerry Clark was from the 29th of October, 2002, by the way - I've noticed it (like much of that month) seems to no longer be available at the UFO Updates Archives, for some weird reason. However, it was when I originally quoted it.
Paul
Paul,
I have no problem with speculation. I believe Dolan presented it as that and there is nothing wrong with that.
What your review and others seem to do is only concentrate on those aspects of the book without mentioning anything else. If I were to just read your review or Harney's I would think that there is nothing worth reading in the book and that is just not true, IMO.
Why only concentrate on what you see as what is wrong with it? Did you find nothing good in it? I don't think you would like that being done to your films, though I am sure some people do just that, if there is something bad in it, it is all bad.
My measure of a book is whether I learned anything at all and most of all if I enjoyed it. I don't have to believe every word of it. In fact, I can't think of any ufo book that I have believed every word of.
Much of ufology is speculative. UFO updates on any given day is nothing more than speculation and opinion. Sure, we can lean towards the more rational explanation, but that doesn't mean it is the correct one. Frankly, I like hearing various people give their speculative views on things. Most things we know as scientific truths now were at one time speculation and not widely accepted by scientists. Those weird theories, like the earth being round and gravity do sometimes turn out to be true.
Really that is besides the point, being someone who reads numerous ufology books, the two that stand out for me are Alien Agenda and UFOs and the National Security State. I have heard the critics on both, but it doesn't change my opinion. I would rather read speculative books that are compelling than dry, dull, just the facts books. I think reviewers do a disservice when they only concentrate on what can be proved because I don't know anyone who reads ufology books for that purpose, except for some reviewers.
You've put you your finger right on the point Lesley.
These...uh... 'oppositionals' will never *credit* something as furiously as they *discredit* it, and their agreements are largely loss leaders, a faux-egalitarian-ness to make their constipated, homo-centric, and myopic scientific reductionisms more salable. No balance there. It's all cant and being ruled by outdated ideologies loath to admit they have no new ideas.
I've a _huge_ respect for Hall & Clark, but again _I_ suspect these giants of the field are repelled by the dark reflections of their paradigms I think are accurately portrayed in Dolan's work.
The West is _not_ without blame and the East does not embody all guilt.
Governments _are_ edifices of corporate duplicity, obfuscation, and a lack of rational forthcomingness.
UFOs are _more_ than a product of the mislead, the mendacious, and the mentally ill.
Their evidence of actuality _is_ real, and the cosmic Watergate is real.
Tonnies is spot _on_ in his estimation, and it's too bad that _some_ of Dolan's detractors have their institutional bowls of Post Toasties pissed in... but then they should have held their bowls a little further from the urinal.
I opine at length on the importance of Dolan's contribution to the field in the next UFO Magazine, as I said.
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
Alfred,
I look forward to your next column in ufo magazine, not that I don't always look forward to it. Getting time to read it is the hard part.
Lesley:
The simple answer, once again, is because Dolan's speculation is indicative of a fundamental flaw in his research methodology, and his objectivity as a historian. It colours everything else (including the good things), and it's important to note in any review (note that most of Dolan's defenders never mention this).
In this case, Dick Hall and Jerry Clark (and many others, such as Brad Sparks) had it exactly right... and so did Harney for once. If that makes me / them/ us the bad guys, so be it.
Paul
Lesley:
One other thing. You wrote:
Mostly I don't understand why people involved in ufology enjoy tearing each other down.
I don't know anybody who enjoys it, per se. It's always nicer to say something positive about someone. However, as I said above, critiquing someone else's work, whether it's Dolan's book, or my films, or Stan Friedman's lectures, etc. etc., is a necessary part of the give and take of reasoned and rational discourse, and is all about getting at the truth by identifying those things that aren't accurate.
I'm sure Dolan, being an adult who made his way through the sharp-elbowed world of academia, understands this, and accepts it, and, if he's as good a historian as you and others think he is, will learn something from it (just as I have learned from criticism of my films).
Paul
Paul,
I shall have to respectfully disagree with you. Speculation is speculation and facts are facts. Speculation does not taint the facts that are presented in Dolan's book, IMO.
Yes, I am sure Dolan can handle it. However, I am growing tired of ufology seeming to be little more than a slap fest. This is not aimed at you because you do work in film, but many of those doing the slapping haven't spent any time doing research, haven't written a paper, let alone a book. Yet, they feel it is their duty to say what is wrong with the way everyone else does things. Besides that, I still feel things would progress much better if people spent less time worrying about what everyone else may be doing wrong and instead concentrating on what they can do right. There just seems to be too much energy spent on the negative.
Lesley:
I shall have to respectfully disagree with you.
Ditto, and with no hard feelings. :-)
Paul
I agree with you Lesley. While Dolan may or may not have relied at times on an individual's comments, without further investigation, the facts, as Dolan did lay out, and, as UFO history proves, are that the government has been active in debunking, misinforming, and misdirecting, info about UFOs.
What is far more troublesome than Dolan's "speculation" is the persistent naive stance of those both within, and without, UFOlogy -- that no such thing took/take place, or that, if so, it's no big deal. In other words, dismissing it so glibly.
As to speculation itself: all we have concerning UFOs is "speculation." That's all I have, that's all you have, that's all _anyone_ has, no matter what they say. Aside from raw data (such and such on object was seen by witnesses, such and such an object was caught on radar, military went searching for something somewhere, etc.) the whys and whats of such events are _speculation_.
Speculation is not a bad thing. Not at all. In fact, some of us might call it thinking. We bring in our theories, ideas, dot connecting, experiences, knowledge, and try to make some sense out of things. This is speculation, but it's good. As long as we remember that that is what it is, and not "the truth."
I agree Regan. Moreover, Many seem to confuse "speculation" (Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.)with "extrapolation" (To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.)
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
Post a Comment