I'm not going to pick sides in this one but want to thank Dolan, Schulyer and the Paracast forum's for serving as a place for their dialogue. The open discussion between then two and the commentary from the members is also an example of more of what is needed. My $0.02 is I can certainly understand and agree with much of Schulyer's criticisms. Dolan perhaps could have used more care in his citations and distinguishing facts from opinions. I can also see Dolan's points. I bet a lot of so called "academic" historian work also falls short in the same ways. I can also see faults in both their arguments. However such is the nature of human discourse. It seems to me it boils down to first principles. Do you inherently believe there is a phenomenon? If so why is it so elusive when it comes to real hard evidence (smoking gun)? Do you believe government is just a group of people with individual interests or do you believe the government inherently, by its nature, creates a system that pits itself against the citizenry? We can only guess at answers because the phenomenon is so elusive and so much disinformation exists. It's kind of like the debate between positivists and anti-positivists/objectivists. I hope this kind of debate continues in a productive way.
I have stayed out of this one. Mostly because I haven't read anything by Richard Dolan. I am more into the afterlife and reincarnation and the idea that the u.f.o. issue might be as much a spiritual or even military issue as a "man from space" issue. I have read Schulyer posting and have agreed with much in the past. That being said let me say this. Anytime and I mean Anytime I hear name calling I pretty much tune out the rest of the story. Why? Well, I (in the early nineties) listened to Rush Limbaugh at one time. Now I'm left of center but I have had my "years" of being right of center. Anyway, one of the most effective and dishonest tatics mr. limbaugh used and still does was to attack the character of a person instead of the issues. G. Gordon Liddy was great at this also but he used grammar and spelling and speech errors as his smoke and mirrors. Anyway, for instance consider the following sentence. "tyder has an interest in the esoteric and has read books on NDE's and U.f.O."s and reincarnation as well as religous studies." Now say it this way " Nimrod over there believes in u.f.o.'s, n.d.e.'s and that he was a "frog" in a past life." Roll eyes and make snorting sound here. Now Tyder may or may not be "right" in his studies or beliefs but the studies and beliefs in their own right are neither stupid or wise. It's just a way of looking at life. So, when you marginalize someone and make up cute little derogatory names for Linda Howe or anybody else then ya lose me. Not because I think Linda Molton Howe is a great researcher. I don't know if she is or not. But, just as jimmy randi attacks character when he debates a scientist (some envy going on there?) and the far right/left calling names turns me off. Well, so does a otherwise valid rebuke such as that written by Mr. Schulyer. Not because he's wrong. He makes valid points. But, because once you enter the world of "marginalizing" ideas and people with inuendos about their character or motivations then you bring it down to the level of a brawl. Maybe there is a time and place for it. If so then I need to just hush. But, these are some things I thought of as I read this thread.
I'm amazed at how lame you can be, Schuyler. Dolan's books are some of the best in Ufology. And where is your UFO scholarly work? Does it exist? No. Lame. Honestly, I have no idea why David Biedny thinks you're so smart.
Let be be the next to add a big fat "Huh?" Is it Official Personal Attacks Month and no one told me about it? On the unlikely chance you're serious and don't know about the documents jkoci posted above as well as the body of posts on this forums, let me be the first to say I have some problems with Schuyler's critique of Dolan's work, but I have great respect for Schuyler. He has, in fact, done his homework in spades, as the documents posted will attest.
Oops. I have no scholarly work on anything (except, maybe, Portuguese Literature... long story). Must. Quit. Critical. Thinking.
