Richard Dolan - Reply to Critique of My Work

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

That may be true in terms of an official mechanism, but there is genuine peer review in the UFO field, at least on occasion. Brad Sparks, for example, prior to submitting his paper on MJ-12 at a recent MUFON Symposium, sent it out to a number of people, including me, with a request to read it, and offer commentary, no matter how brutal. I know - some of my comments were pretty pointed.
Other peer review goes on, but almost always sub rosa.

But in general, you're quite right - "ufology" isn't subject to any real standards, or methodology, which results in a free-for-all. Given the nature of the subject, perhaps that's not such a bad thing. It's more entertainment, at least in the public sphere - the real work generally goes on in private, away from the loonies.

Paul

Hi folks,

The sparks are flying and cool heads are needed. Academia is a place where you are told what to write and how to write it until you have finished your degree these days. You are ask to follow guide lines even after completion of your degree which is setup by authorities in charge of funding. Years ago you could question the authorities on the subject matter and ufology at least has the spark to question the authorities. Who makes the rules in academia ?

peace,
blowfish

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

It appears we need a little tutorial on what constitutes 'Peer Review.' The only time I mentioned 'Peer Review' in my own review of Dolan's work was when I mentioned that as far as I knew Dolan had never undergone it. That's it. I do not maintain that my own review constitutes 'peer review;' in fact, I deny it. I never said it did.

'Peer Review' takes place prior to publication and most usually involves academic periodical articles. The method is that an article is submitted for publication. An editor removes the authors' names from the submission and sends copies to 'peers' in the subject area who are considered experts in their field, i.e.: Who have earned PhDs and usually have academic appointments in either teaching or research. Without knowing who wrote it, these academicians then rate the work and call 'yay' or 'nay' for publication, sometimes suggesting changes. If the work is approved for publication and actually published, the article has a certain 'cachet' and can be counted in the 'publish or perish' world of gaining tenure as a point in the author's favor. An important point is that neither the reviewers nor the authors know who each other are (at least in theory).

This is a very formal process. The first-named author gets most of the credit. Sometimes the last-named author, when there are several, has contributed nothing to the article at all; he's just allowed his name to be associated with it. This is also where graduate students do most of the work, but the 'author' in charge of them puts his own name on the work. For a PhD, especially, the degree is not awarded; it is conferred upon you. That means you do what your mentor tells you to do.

. . . .

As to the critics of my criticism, you have actually read the book, right? You have followed a few references to see where they went, including finding a few of those dead ends, right? There are plenty of them so you won't have any trouble finding them accidentally. So your words of wisdom on this are based on facts that you have independently verified for yourselves, right? Well, that's great. I'm glad you have done that. Otherwise I don't see why anyone should pay attention to you. It's kind of like peer review. If you haven't done your homework, how do you know you are right? Upon what facts in the books themselves are you basing your opinion?

Schuyler, thanks for your "little tutorial", but believe it or not we are not all yokels. In fact, some of us have actually been published in formal academic journals, including academic science journals and law reviews at accredited law schools. And believe it or not, some have even served on editorial boards in well respected law journals. The term "peer review" can have a formal meaning as used in an academic setting, describing a formal process, but it can also have a broader, less formal meaning if used in other environments (e.g., an internet chat board on UFOs).

So, it seems that you hold Mr. Dolan to formal academic standards for his works published for the mass market [perhaps rightfully so, but to be clear he is not publishing in an academic journal on history], you hold the participants on this paranormal chat board to a formal 'academic' definition of the words we use (ergo, our "need [for] a little tutorial on what constitutes 'Peer Review'"), but you expressly exempt yourself from academic or formal standards. Interesting. That being said, as I and others have mentioned, there is clearly merit in your "critical work" of Mr. Dolan's books.

Go back and re-read the criticisms of your paper which people have posted (our "words of wisdom"). No one argued that your fact- or cite-checking was done incorrectly, or that your arguments had holes in them (except for Mr. Dolan himself). In fact, I don't think anyone here has done the leg work to formally look at what you published (again, this is a paranormal chat board). But people called you out for doing something a young teenage kid on the local high school debate team wouldn't do: name-calling (e.g., "drone queen"). This is a charge which can be made with or without reading Mr. Dolan's works (look at your last paragraph quoted above in this context). If your paper came in to a formal academic publication, it probably would have been disregarded in toto for that alone, depsite any merits to the underlying work. In this context, do you still question "why anyone should pay attention to [us]"?

I think you really need to re-examine the way you interact with people, quite frankly (go back and re-read your response to our fellow forum member Mike C.'s original note in response to your paper -- it was downright offensive). Contrast the language employed in your paper/notes to the tone of Mr. Dolan's response yesterday. You can either take this onboard constructively, or you can continue making enemies over things that really don't matter.

I for one come to the Paracast Forum for fun and perhaps to learn a thing or two in a positive, constructive dialogue with some like-minded people, not to be insulted.

 

[owlman]

I have come to realize, that in life, unfortunately even in the most brilliant and intellectual minds , many of these individuals possess extremely poor people skills and have little to no social etiquette.

 

[bobheck]

I have come to realize, that in life, unfortunately even in the most brilliant and intellectual minds , many of these individuals possess extremely poor people skills and have little to no social etiquette.

Oh how gauche of them, I concur. Do pass the crumpets, fellow elitist, so we way savor them whilst we make sport of more simpletons. [Insert chortle]

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Oh how gauche of them, I concur. Do pass the crumpets, fellow elitist, so we way savor them whilst we make sport of more simpletons. [Insert chortle]

I say, Old Stick! Damn fine way of neutralizing the "drone queen" comment. Never mind how bloody accurate it is. That's hardly the point, now is it?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The only time I mentioned 'Peer Review' in my own review of Dolan's work was when I mentioned that as far as I knew Dolan had never undergone it. That's it. I do not maintain that my own review constitutes 'peer review;' in fact, I deny it. I never said it did.

Once again well done on your excellent "critique" on Dolan's work. I think that Dolan's work does need to be critically reviewed by his peers and all other interested onlookers and participants in the UFO realm. If indeed his work stands up to the test of time and criticisms then it will live up to the praise and reputation that has been heaped on it. It may even become a UFO academic classic. But until that time it will (and should) be analyzed carefully by his peers and others.

As you have mentioned you are not the only one who has criticised his work. Others in UFO academia seem to have issues with him as well.

It seems that some here and there are sensitive to the fact that people like Linda Moulton Howe, Steven Greer are criticised or called names in your review. So what? LMH has been called the "Drone Queen" for some time now. One would think that the sensitive souls on this forum have never seen or heard of that type of ridicule associated with these so called "champions" of the UFO field. You certainly were'nt the first to do so nor will you be the last.

The fact that Richard Dolan seems to bob up on various convention agendas with some very questionable characters from time to time (including aforementioned pair) means that he will scrutinized carefully for his decisions. He may well have very well meaning and valid reasons for his choices but nonetheless scrutiny will be coming his way from all sides.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

…LMH has been called the "Drone Queen" for some time now.

Really? I thought she was our "Dragon Queen."
*smile*

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I have come to realize, that in life, unfortunately even in the most brilliant and intellectual minds , many of these individuals possess extremely poor people skills and have little to no social etiquette.

Owlman, thanks for the note. In my experience I have found that many genuinely intelligent people have extra-ordinary social skills. For example, and putting aside his politics, think of Bill Clinton and the skillful politician he was. I have spent time with him on a number of occasions, and he genuinely is engaging in conversation and in debate (btw, I am a registered Republican; I recognize Clinton is a polarizing figure but you get my point). I have also met one or two well known theoretical physicists while an undergraduate (my major was Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry), and while they may be a little odd on the surface, many have a generous way of engaging with others and are articulate (think of Michio Kaku or Brian Greene). In both my academic and business careers the people who have truly left a notable impression on me for their intellect generally had these extraordinary inter-personal skills, together with the substance. Indeed, they certainly are clever enough to realize that if you engage in name calling it directly undercuts the weight of your arguments and draws into question your motivations, with the center of attention quickly turning to your antics rather than the weakness of your opposition.

For example, look at Richard Dolan's note above: nearly half of his response is focused on the name calling issue rather than the quality of his scholarship. You only need to look one move down the chessboard to see that coming. A great diversion was served up to him on a platter.

For those who think some of us are being too sensitive on this topic, please don't mistake civility for a lack of mettle. Some of the toughest SOBs I have met are quite generous individuals and civil in their interactions with others, until some fool crosses them. And as far as I am concerned Mr. Dolan can hang out with whomever he pleases -- we should judge him solely (and fairly) on the quality of his work (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be).

 

[Gareth]

That may be true in terms of an official mechanism, but there is genuine peer review in the UFO field, at least on occasion. Brad Sparks, for example, prior to submitting his paper on MJ-12 at a recent MUFON Symposium, sent it out to a number of people, including me, with a request to read it, and offer commentary, no matter how brutal. I know - some of my comments were pretty pointed.
Other peer review goes on, but almost always sub rosa.

But in general, you're quite right - "ufology" isn't subject to any real standards, or methodology, which results in a free-for-all. Given the nature of the subject, perhaps that's not such a bad thing. It's more entertainment, at least in the public sphere - the real work generally goes on in private, away from the loonies.

Paul

Just out of interest Paul, what is your opinion of volume 2 or Dolans book? As you were one of the only critical voices of the first volume Im curious if you think Rich addressed any of your specific concerns for V2. I haven't read V2 yet.

 

[marmer]

That may be true in terms of an official mechanism, but there is genuine peer review in the UFO field, at least on occasion. Brad Sparks, for example, prior to submitting his paper on MJ-12 at a recent MUFON Symposium, sent it out to a number of people, including me, with a request to read it, and offer commentary, no matter how brutal. I know - some of my comments were pretty pointed. (snip)
Paul

I remember a few years ago that Kevin Randle was trying really hard to get some kind of peer review for his great paper on the Mantell case. If I remember correctly, it was kind of frustrating for him.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I remember a few years ago that Kevin Randle was trying really hard to get some kind of peer review for his great paper on the Mantell case. If I remember correctly, it was kind of frustrating for him.

Randle has a new book forthcoming on flying saucer crashes. We'll be talking with him about this and other matters -- this week.

 

[Jay]

Randle has a new book forthcoming on flying saucer crashes. We'll be talking with him about this and other matters -- this week.

Excellent! Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Paul Kimball]

Just out of interest Paul, what is your opinion of volume 2 or Dolans book? As you were one of the only critical voices of the first volume Im curious if you think Rich addressed any of your specific concerns for V2. I haven't read V2 yet.

Hi,

Actually, as Schuyler points out, I was far from the only person that was critical of Rich's first book. I can also say that I spoke to a number of other senior UFO researchers, and they were just as critical as Dick Hall or Michael Swords, but wouldn't say so in public (which I always thought was a bit cowardly).

Having said that, I quite like Rich as a person, even if I disagree with most of what he writes, and his point of view on the UFO phenomenon. If it wasn't for his love of the damn Yankees...

Paul

 

[Hoffmeister]

As for my opinion on this whole debate:

I consider Schuyler a friend on these forums and think that as always he has come up with some very good points in the review. I think that the book includes a lot of references to people who have long since lost any credibility and often fails to highlight that. So many times I'll be reading cases in the book that I don't know too much about.... and be fillled with wonder as I think about whether the case really happened. Only to read the next chapter which spouts off about someone like Paul Benowitz and doesnt even mention the fact that the guy has just about zero credibility, and this then takes away the wonder from the last chapter and makes me think that the whole lot is probably bunk.

I think Dolan should have left out a lot of the poison pills and concentrated on the better cases, and his opinions on the cases tend to be a little paranoid. It also felt like he spent a lot less time per case in the book whereby some of the really big cases recieved a page long mention and that was it.

However...

I think perhaps the review was written with a little too much venom in the tongue and i'm not sure whether that was neccesary. Dolan appears to me like a nice guy, and whilst he may not always be covering the most credible material, its his book and and he is allowed to include who he wants. I was listening to Paul Kimballs interview on the culture of contact yesterday (from 14/4/08) and he made the point that there is two sides to the UFO mystery....'The study of the UFO phenomenon' which is basically the serious study into UFO's.. and UFOlogy which is basically the socialogical aspect of the phenomena.

If Dolan set out to write a book that includes a history of both these studies, whilst giving an easy to read format and allowing to express some of his personal opinions on the subject.... then in my eyes he succeeded

If he set out to write a definitive study of the most genuine cases in the history of UFO's, concentrating on the most credible cases, producing the evidence and allowing the reader to make up their mind (ala James Fox) then he failed.

Finally I'll say that for what its worth, I enjoyed the book and would recommend anyone to read it.... if one of the cases in the books really catches your imagination then go away and do some basic internet reseach on it yourself to see how much credibility it has.

When people ask me what the best case evidence for UFO's is, I tend to think that there is not one single case that provides the best evidence.... but the overall number of cases over the last hundred years. For me the thousands of cases can't all be lie's, hoaxes and misidentifications.... and this book goes a long way to highlighting the volume of those cases

 

[Gareth]

Hi,

Actually, as Schuyler points out, I was far from the only person that was critical of Rich's first book. I can also say that I spoke to a number of other senior UFO researchers, and they were just as critical as Dick Hall or Michael Swords, but wouldn't say so in public (which I always thought was a bit cowardly).

Having said that, I quite like Rich as a person, even if I disagree with most of what he writes, and his point of view on the UFO phenomenon. If it wasn't for his love of the damn Yankees...

Paul

Hi Paul. I actually said you were "one of the only" ones who had something negative to say. I know you definitely were not the only dissenting voice.

 

[stphrz]

Once again, as is par for the course in this 'subject' that cannot be taught , Ufology ..it has turned downright ugly. I applaud Richard Dolan, who has at least TRIED to get some of the information out there and has done monumental work in the two volumes thus far. If he's made mistakes, its because he's human.
I suggest anyone, who has the intellect , and certainly, the time to write a scathing review of the his work, to put your money where your mouth is . Come on, let's see your own attempt . Please !
We would all appreciate more contributions to the field , so how about it ?

I just want to say one thing about this kind of "Lets see you do better" or "What kind or research have YOU done on the topic that makes you qualified to knock someone elses work" response to criticism.

It does not fly.

I have read Mr. Dolan's first book and listened to his interviews on the paracast. In my opinion he HAS made conclusions about specifics based on facts not in evidence. Then later, he seemed to rework these conclusions as facts toward other conclusions . That perhaps I do not know the real truth behind it or researched it myself does not disqualify me from realizing that he has not proven his case.

Schuyler has pointed out a few cases where this has happened. No, scratch that. He pointed out a lot of cases really. It only takes citing and running with ONE bad source to derail an entire thesis.

One.

Yeah, I guess Schuyler got a wee bit nasty with Mr. Dolan but pointing out that he got nasty is not a defence. What you have to do is go back Schuyler's review, pick out the specific instances where he lays Mr. Dolan out and prove he is wrong in his facts and conclusions. I haven't seen anyone in either thread do that yet.

 

[Ron Collins]

Firstly, I have not read the second book. I have ordered it but as of yet not read a single line. I have however read the first book at least 5 times. The same problems exist there. I think it is wise to look at the intent behind the books and not just the wording. Dolan likes to toss in his opinion, typically announced as such, as a mechanism to steer the topic in a given direction. Often, as is evident in the James Forestal section of the first book, these opinions are without credible information presented to back up the opinion. My problem with that is that he represents that he has a mountain of evidence supporting his thesis. But in the first book you have cherry picked facts stuck together by opinion, supposition, questionable sourcing, and a predetermined conclusion. Admittedly I have not read the second book but if Schuyler is right, I do not see that these things have changed.

Also, I have a few issues with the way Dolan responded to Schuyler.
1) Greer's book "Disclosure" should never be used as a reference. OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with the actual quotes cited as it does that Greers name is all over it. We are not talking about long dead references here. You have their names and they are alive. I am not suggesting that the individual quote is necessarily bad. However, you need a degree of separation from polarizing personalities like Greer. Bypass the questionable name association and go right to the source if you want to use what they said. Attaching names like Greer and Morton to your work in any way other than to expose their charlatan side is either lazy or indicative of being situationally unaware. Both are bad and likely to get you ripped by the non-WooWoo crowd. Perhaps all those C2C visits has dulled his understanding in this area???

2) When you lace your book with opinion and innuendo expect to be taken to task. If Dolan had not offered source material while attempting to be scholarly about his work and just published his book as an opinion piece I doubt he would have received this level of scorn. It all speaks to intent. His intent was to offer a scholarly work, just like his first book was intended to be. The first book was as close to a scholarly book as has ever been offered (at least to my reading) in the subject. But it misses the mark because of the tenuous nature of the connections made.

3) The "Nevertheless, I certainly would encourage Mr. Schuyler to try his hand at writing an alternative history. Clearly, he is up to the job." remark is asinine. You chose to put the book out there. Now take the hits and either roll with them or defend yourself. When a food critic reviews a restaurant the chef doesn't reply with "if you didn't like it, grab a skillet and do better". That would make them look foolish.

4) The LMH stuff is telling. Your personal credibility comes in large part with the company you keep and the endorsements you lend. Yes she did some pioneering work in cattle mutilations. That was good work. She has since slid in credibility. Now, having not read the book I can not speak as to what time frame the quoted piece is derived or its subject matter. She may be a nice person but she has made some spectacular blunders and done some bonehead things since the good work with mutilations. He should acknowledge that. However, he still holds her in a high regard for her "continued contributions"(from an interview I heard several months ago). The small dig at the end () was the same B.S. as #3 in my points above. But I can honestly say that Schuylers contribution, if accurate, would be to expose the problems and issues in a book that most true believers consider a seminal work.

OK, that is it for now, feel free to tear me a new one.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Firstly, I have not read the second book. I have ordered it but as of yet not read a single line. I have however read the first book at least 5 times. The same problems exist there

If you've read it five times, you must have enjoyed it though right? Therefore surely it has served its purpose.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Great thread. I give Rich a lot of credit for posting on these boards. A lot of people probably wouldn't. I hope u can have Rich on the Paracast for a civil discussion/debate about this stuff. it would make great radio and it would be a great thing for the UFO scene in general I think.

As an outsider having never read any of Dolan's books and with zero interest in researching anything or picking sides (since I'm lazy!) I give Rich credit for putting so much work into compiling these books and I give Schuyler credit for taking the time to locate those areas that hurt the book's credibility from a research perspective and posting his paper. I enjoyed reading the critique and getting a better feel for Rich's research methods.

I will say, the tone of Schuyler piece seemed more heated and personal than something that is 'peer reviewed', but obviously Schuyler doesn't pretend to be a 'peer reviewer' just a dude comparing Rich's work to what is expected in academia.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Rich's book isn't intended as meeting "academic" standards. But.... I didn't read the books so I could be wrong and even worse, I could be really wrong.

So really in my mind the debate comes down in it's simplest sense to:

1. Does Rich try to play it off like his work is 'academic' in nature
2. or is he merely providing the UFO community with his 2 cents?

If Rich has always maintained his work is what it is, old cases combined with his commentary, then I think any type of mean spirited tone is uncalled for unless you really just don't like his book for other reasons.

But if Rich fancies himself an 'official historian' of UFO cases and his books are meant to be taken in that veign, then perhaps I can see why that would rub people the wrong way and lead to some pissing matches.

However, if the scenario is that Rich is just doing his thing on the down-low and he doesn't pretend his work is academic level research and doesn't act like his shit don't stick but people around him call him the second coming, I don't think you can hate the player, hate the game!

Either way, I think Michael Salla could learn a lot from this discussion.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I think all of us, myself included, need to remember the fact that there are human beings on the other end of these computers -- people with sick children, aging parents, troubles at their jobs and bills to pay. Everyone should be treated with civility and consideration -- certainly absent any indication of fraud or exploitation of others (I doubt anyone would put Mr. Dolan in this category). This does not preclude a bona fide, spirited discussion on the merits of any given topic, but it does raise the level of the discourse and make this a place worth coming to every day.