Infrasound de-bunked?

[Dr B]

Well, not de-bunked - but at least challenged.....

Forgive me for some shamless self-publicity.....but I have been asked to refer some details of the following. ;)

A recent study published in the JSPR {Braithwaite & Townsend, 2006} has questioned the role of infrasound in strange anomalous experiences like apparitions / ghosts etc.

The critique is based on the original studies of Tandy (2000) and Tandy & Lawrence (1999).

The new critique basically points out that in the first investigation of infrasound (that received world-wide coverage and even a mention in New Scientist so I am told) no actual measurements of infrasound were taken. It was all speculative and very indirect. Also the infrasound was supposed to have been coming from a large faulty electric extractor fan. This would also have been a source of magnetic fields (for which there is some evidence for effects on perception).

In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

A list of cognitive and neuroscientific factors making the suggested role for infrasound at low db unlikely are also given.

Despite these shortcomings the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists and amatuer woo's. I cannot see why.

What interests me is that the ideas have taken on such momentum - in the absence - as I see it - of any real direct evidence. :eek:

As I see it, the case for infrasound as a source for inducing anomalous perceptions, has yet to be empirically demonstrated. What do others here think?

{note - the critique is not one supporting woo - quite the opposite in fact}

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, infrasound has some effects on humans, but not, I think anything that could easily be connected to paranormal phenomenon. Main effects are nausea, dizzyness, and headache. More direct perceptions are the feeling that a large truck (or similar engine) is idling in the vicinity. Most people are not very sensitive to this, however, which is a good thing because modern industry buildings, ships, and aircraft are full of infrasound.

Hans

[Dr B]

Hi Hans

Thanks for the comments. I totally agree with you ;) . I would add that I am not so sure about infrasound having any perceptual effects.

The way I see it - to be true infrasound - observers should not be able to hear it (below hearing threashold) - otherwise, well, its just sound. If they can hear it - then it becomes low-frequency sound and not technically infrasound (unless I misunderstand its definition - which I have checked with the chambers dictionary of science and technology and is in line with my points).

I have read many papers claiming infrasound effects - only to realise that they may be using low frequency fields, but they are using high db values (80 - 150db in many cases). This, to me is not true infrasound - but experiments using low frequency high-strength sound (does that make sense?).

Do you know of any published cases using frequencies of 20Hz and below, and of 50db - 60db and below (to qualify as infrasound) - which have reported effects on perception? I have tried desparately to find these......but I am not sure they exist.

[MRC_Hans]

Per definition, infrasound is soundwaves below 20Hz (I don't know if there is a lower limit). You will be able to hear sound outside your hearing range, if it's intense enough, and not too far out. This is because the limits of the hearing range is defined by sounds of a certain intensity, but of course, it doesn't roll sharply off, so with higher intensity, it will be somewhat extended.

Intensities in the low range don't have the same meaning as in the normal range. You can have a sound that is technically definable to, say, 60dB, but it won't couple very effectively to the human ear, because the wavelength is considerably longer than the size of the outer ear (a 20Hz sound wave has a wavelenght of appr. 16 meters), so we feel such waves more than we hear them.

There was a mythbuster episode where they explored a certain aleged effect of low frequency soundwaves (including, but not limited to the infrasound range). This was the alleged effect on bowel function, but since those experiments involved lengthy exposure to high-intensity waves of varying frequencies, other effects would probably have been noticed. None were.

I think many reports of effects of infrasound are really secondary effects: It is not the actual, airborne, wave, but vibrations in walls, floors, or furniture that make people react. They are not detected by the ears, but felt in the body. We are originally tree-living creatures, and the ability to sense slight vibrations under us might at one time in evolution have been important in detecting predators and other enemies trying to sneak up on us.

Hans

[cj.23]

Well, not de-bunked - but at least challenged.....

Forgive me for some shamless self-publicity.....but I have been asked to refer some details of the following. ;)

A recent study published in the JSPR {Braithwaite & Townsend, 2006} has questioned the role of infrasound in strange anomalous experiences like apparitions / ghosts etc.

Yes, I read your paper with interest --excellent. It was Tony Cornell who first made me question the ghosts and infrasound link, and then I began to ask obvious questions, but I agree that the idea is currently unproven yet becoming sceptical "common sense", and attaining popular acceptance.



The new critique basically points out that in the first investigation of infrasound (that received world-wide coverage and even a mention in New Scientist so I am told) no actual measurements of infrasound were taken. It was all speculative and very indirect. Also the infrasound was supposed to have been coming from a large faulty electric extractor fan. This would also have been a source of magnetic fields (for which there is some evidence for effects on perception).


From what I can make out Tandy actually felt that the perceptual effects were caused by a standing wave effect?


In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

I can't see the relevance of a baseline study? How does that work?


A list of cognitive and neuroscientific factors making the suggested role for infrasound at low db unlikely are also given.


No idea, not my field, but what I have seen supports that yes. It's important they to note Tandy and Lawrence specify they are dealing with an "allergy" type response, limited to one in many thousands, not a common response though?


Despite these shortcomings the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists...


On the contrary, there is general scepticism about the claims in the parapsychological community, on common sense grounds. I know because I surveyed the UK parapsychological communities informal mailing list only a week of so ago on this very issue. There is some new research about to come out I think, which may change opinions, but it has never really been embraced wholeheartedly by the parapsi community. Wiseman et al did consider it in the Edinburgh Vaults paper (2003?) but to quote one of the authors "it was not the main focus of the experiments." Your paper did much to support that conclusion, though I suspect it was your article in the Fortean Times noting lack of experimental replication was the real clarion call. Anyway I agree with you this is unsubstantiated, and spreading fast.


the idea of infrasound is an ever popular amongst some parapsychologists and amatuer woo's...

Comments removed by request.
I think that is a very important point to make.


What interests me is that the ideas have taken on such momentum - in the absence - as I see it - of any real direct evidence. :eek:

Plenty of evidence - no proof. Being a parapsychologist does not make you immune to this - evidence and proof are very different things. Actually I have been looking in to the cultural basis for how these ideas have spread and why for a proposed forthcoming book, which also examines such wonderful silliness as EMF meter ghosthunting, The Myth of the Mithras-Christ connection, and the 70s/80s version of this popular truth about ghosts "Stone Tape". Cultural history is my thing. It's main mode of spreading appears to have been through sceptical sites.


As I see it, the case for infrasound as a source for inducing anomalous perceptions, has yet to be empirically demonstrated. What do others here think?


Agree absolutely, and think your paper was an excellent wake up call before the idea becomes too established to fight, as with Kneale's stone tape. The sceptical community is ironically the primary method for its replication, so sure, thsi is a great way of drawing it to their attention.

Its really been promoted uncritically by the Skeptical community who generally did not bother to critique it - and a common sense critique will suffice to show its flaws, without even a consideration of the mainstream scientific evidence on sound and perception -- because it was a convenient theory in line with there baises

Comments removed by request.

[/B]cj x

[Garrette]

I have to admit that I have on several occasions posited infrasound as possible explanation for seemingly unexplained events. I have to rethink that now.

[Dr B]

Per definition, infrasound is soundwaves below 20Hz (I don't know if there is a lower limit). You will be able to hear sound outside your hearing range, if it's intense enough, and not too far out. This is because the limits of the hearing range is defined by sounds of a certain intensity, but of course, it doesn't roll sharply off, so with higher intensity, it will be somewhat extended.

Intensities in the low range don't have the same meaning as in the normal range. You can have a sound that is technically definable to, say, 60dB, but it won't couple very effectively to the human ear, because the wavelength is considerably longer than the size of the outer ear (a 20Hz sound wave has a wavelenght of appr. 16 meters), so we feel such waves more than we hear them.

There was a mythbuster episode where they explored a certain aleged effect of low frequency soundwaves (including, but not limited to the infrasound range). This was the alleged effect on bowel function, but since those experiments involved lengthy exposure to high-intensity waves of varying frequencies, other effects would probably have been noticed. None were.

I think many reports of effects of infrasound are really secondary effects: It is not the actual, airborne, wave, but vibrations in walls, floors, or furniture that make people react. They are not detected by the ears, but felt in the body. We are originally tree-living creatures, and the ability to sense slight vibrations under us might at one time in evolution have been important in detecting predators and other enemies trying to sneak up on us.

Hans


Thanks hans - much appreciated.

As I suspected intensitities are much higher in most tests - i think that makes them redundent as a test of infrasound which should be low frequency and low intensity ;)

[Ersby]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)

In addition, the second study of Tandy - some measurments were taken - but the levels of infrasound were really really low (around 30db if my memory serves me rightly). This is far too low to have any physical effect on the human eye and likely to be too low to have any effect at all. More worrying is that no baseline measurements were ever taken in either Tandy study!

Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.

And I'm not even sure that it was infrasound. Meanwhile, I'm prety sure two experiments were done, and the first experiments results weren't replicated in the second. I'll have to check later.

[Dr B]

Yes, I read your paper with interest --excellent. It was Tony Cornell who first made me question the ghosts and infrasound link, and then I began to ask obvious questions, but I agree that the idea is currently unproven yet becoming sceptical "common sense", and attaining popular acceptance.

Why thank you - and yes i agree we should be skeptical based on the current evidence. Note - I have never said it is not possible for it to be true - just that no evidence (as far as I can see) has been provided to convincingly support its case.


From what I can make out Tandy actually felt that the perceptual effects were caused by a standing wave effect?

Indeed - but he took no quantifiable measurements at all.



I can't see the relevance of a baseline study? How does that work?

I am sorry for not being clearer. I was not mentioning a baseline study - but baseline measurements for the given study. In the 2000 paper Tandy just took sound measurements in the 'haunted' room...thats it. Well, with no baseline areas surveyed - its meaningless. What if infrasound was present everywhere and in neutral areas to a higher degree? What then for the theory of infrasound? The problem is a study with no baseline is impossible to interpret - at least for me.


On the contrary, there is general scepticism about the claims in the parapsychological community, on common sense grounds.

There was and is general acceptance as well - Wiseman has reckoned it to be important and French looked into it with his 'Project haunt'. Other SPR articles passively cite the work as plausible evidence for an energetic component to haunt-type perceptions.

I am not saying some are not skeptical - but many are not skeptical.

There is some new research about to come out I think, which may change opinions, but it has never really been embraced wholeheartedly by the parapsi community.


I look forward to it - please keep me in the loop and let me know the details when you can (much appreciated in advance ;) ).


Wiseman et al did consider it in the Edinburgh Vaults paper (2003?) but to quote one of the authors "it was not the main focus of the experiments."

Indeed, but it was mentioned as an important factor - I dont think so.


Your paper did much to support that conclusion, though I suspect it was your article in the Fortean Times noting lack of experimental replication was the real clarion call. Anyway I agree with you this is unsubstantiated, and spreading fast.

Thank you for the kind comments ;) I suspect you are right that opinion is changing. btw the article was in the JSPR not FT....


Like associate members of CSI, and members of ASKE? The only two occasions I have ever discovered people experimenting with this idea they were from these organisations, and on both occasions, a couple of years apart, ....snip

I have no idea - uncritical acceptence is bad no matter who makes it. However, I would not make the assumption that only those directly testing it are the ones making the claims or uncritically accepting it. As I have said above, at least two leading parapsychologists in the UK have mentioned it and have tried to experiment with it to some minor degree....


I drew attention to the fact they were apparently unaware of the original hypothesis and were in fact just testing misunderstood ideas not the actual theory! (Before we get in the experimental and methodological flaws of their research...)

Sounds interesting - can you tell us more or is it private? Your illustration sounds an important one.

So amateur anti-woos, indeed the Skeptical community, appear to be the medium in which this is spreading -- nopt to mention misleading entries in things like Skepdic which are horrifically uncritical and misrepresensative of the claims, and very naievely so.

I dont see it as a "them vs us" or an either / or situation. I see it from the parapsychological community - the very community that gave us the idea in the first place (lets not forget that)! I am not saying that some skeptics should not know better....clearly they should. Misunderstanding is misunderstanding no matter who makes it - but the parapsychological community (in general) has had its part to play here.


Plenty of evidence - no proof.

Errr not sure what you mean by this - but i would say there is no evidence. Would you care to point me in the direction of such evidence? I would be delighted to consider it and revise my view if, there is convincing evidence for a role of true-infrasound indcuing anomalous perceptions.


evidence and proof are very different things.

One does tend to rely on the other though. And I am not so sure I go along with this but thats irrelevant really. ;)


Actually I have been looking in to the cultural basis for how these ideas have spread and why for a proposed forthcoming book, which also examines such wonderful silliness as EMF meter ghosthunting, The Myth of the Mithras-Christ connection, and the 70s/80s version of this popular truth about ghosts "Stone Tape". Cultural history is my thing. It's main mode of spreading appears to have been through sceptical sites.

That sounds really interesting ;) good luck with it - i think you are looking into a very interesting area. Some stuff has been done on this already - but I am sure you are aware of that.


Its really been promoted uncritically by the Skeptical community who generally did not bother to critique it - and a common sense critique will suffice to show its flaws, without even a consideration of the mainstream scientific evidence on sound and perception -- because it was a convenient theory in line with there baises

I agree some skeptics should have done a better job - but dont draw attention away from parapsychology which has its hands dirty with this one as well.

Interesting chat and thanks for the input ;)

[Dr B]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)
Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.

I never said any such thing and i never mentioned RW until later posts in tangential conversations. No - Tandy suggested that infrasound could vibrate the eye-ball and induce odd perceptions (smearing of his glasses frame) which he suggested as a possible mechanism for his sighting of an apparition. So its Tandy who claimed this - certainly not me. Indeed, I argue quite strongly against it as a plausible mechanism for high-level hallucination of the sort he reported. Tandy also reported unease etc as well......


And I'm not even sure that it was infrasound. Meanwhile, I'm prety sure two experiments were done, and the first experiments results weren't replicated in the second. I'll have to check later.


Who did two experiments and on what? Sorry I'm a bit confused and await your return.

Regards
Dr B

[Ersby]

Sorry for the confusion. It was Wiseman who did two experiments that sort of overlap with this field of research. Actually, three.

Found it on Wiseman's site: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/ghosts.html

He did investigate infra-sound, alongside other possible causes for feelings of unease.

[cj.23]

Re: Wiseman. (Dr B, I know you're opening post didn't mention him, I just want to clarify something)

Are you saying that infrasound caused an effect on the eye, e.g. hallucinations? It's been a while since I read Wiseman's papers, but I think he was measuring how much people felt unease.


I'm not Dr B, but that association was considered by Tandy briefly as a mechanism for the proposed allergy. The interesting question it how it would relate at astigmatism? Mind you i have no real knowledge of the area, just curious...

Wiseman et al. (2003) was what you said yes.


However, the location of participants’ experiences correlated signiŽ cantly with various environmental factors, including, for example, the variance of local magnetic Ž elds and lighting levels. These Ž findings strongly suggest that alleged hauntings may not necessarily represent evidence for ‘ghostly’ activity, but could be, at least in part, the result of people responding to ‘normal’ factors in their surroundings.

from the paper available at http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/BJP-hauntings.pdfInfrasound did not seem very important from my (dubious) memory recall, but was a minor aspect studied.


cj x

[Dr B]

Sorry for the confusion. It was Wiseman who did two experiments that sort of overlap with this field of research. Actually, three.

Found it on Wiseman's site: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/ghosts.html

He did investigate infra-sound, alongside other possible causes for feelings of unease.

Ok - thanks for that. Wiseman did not publish anything specific on infrasound and I think he did a public thingy with musicians etc. However, with no protocol, methods, figures, data, published....what can anyone say about it?

If this stuff has been published, as a full empirical experiment, please point me to it. ;)

(PS - I am not referring to the vaults stuff - I know about that work)

[cj.23]

Thank you for the kind comments ;) I suspect you are right that opinion is changing. btw the article was in the JSPR not FT....



It was indeed - Braithwaite, J.J., & Townsend, M. (2006) Good vibrations: The case for a specific effect of infrasound in instances of anomalous experience has yet to be empirically demonstrated. Journal for the Society of Psychical Research, 70 (885), pp211-224.

I mentioned it here only last week - http://theskepticexpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=850

but there was a Fortean Times article on Project Haunt, which stated there was to date no experimental replication of Tandy's ideas, and i mistakenly assumed you were the author, or at least it was your research mentioned?

My apologies if I was incorrect. Anyone recall the piece?

And I agree its not "us versus them". How can it be? I just worry when ideas are disseminated as truth without adequate checks. O'Keefe and Parsons are currently working on this - soon we will have much more to go on...

cj x

[cj.23]

Ok - thanks for that. Wiseman did not publish anything specific on infrasound and I think he did a public thingy with musicians etc. However, with no protocol, methods, figures, data, published....what can anyone say about it?

If this stuff has been published, as a full empirical experiment, please point me to it. ;)


It's being prepared for publication I believe. It was Ciairan O Keefe not Richard Wiseman

[Dr B]

Sure thing ;)

I was invovled as a consultant on project haunt as it revolved around alot of my prior published work in the area - however, i dont subscribe to the FT so I have no idea what was written (sorry ;) ).

Also, Prof French and I are planning a phase II which is very interesting indeed and I look forward to it. The second phase will concentrate more on complex magnetic fields, suggestion, and experiential context - which I feel might be more important than infrasound. :cool:

[cj.23]

double post

[cj.23]

W
I look forward to it - please keep me in the loop and let me know the details when you can (much appreciated in advance ;) ).



I'm afraid that is based on no more than someone suggesting a forthcoming SPR study day may be on the area, but I don't know any details. This is not really my area at all, and i am not involved in any research therein - I'm no scientist. O Keefe is definitely working in the area, but it's way outside my field of interest.




Sounds interesting - can you tell us more or is it private? Your illustration sounds an important one.
Nope, it was just amateur ghosthunting experiments which tried to take the hypothesis in to account. Not my area, but they failed in both cases to consider that the perceptual effects they were reporting were wiuth full knowledge that the sound they thought caused it was present. I simply stated suggestibility was more likely as a cause under these circumstances.



Errr not sure what you mean by this - but i would say there is no evidence. Would you care to point me in the direction of such evidence? I would be delighted to consider it and revise my view if, there is convincing evidence for a role of true-infrasound indcuing anomalous perceptions.No I agree absolutely. I'm just querying your usage of the word evidence - I think you mean proof. This is absolutely nothing to do with this argument and entirely down to a rambling discussion elsewhere on a silly semantic point. Ignore that! I am poiunting out the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" playing word games that is all!

[Dr B]

I'm afraid that is based on no more than someone suggesting a forthcoming SPR study day may be on the area, but I don't know any details. This is not really my area at all, and i am not involved in any research therein - I'm no scientist. O Keefe is definitely working in the area, but it's way outside my field of interest.

Fair enough. I look forward to reading the results of these studies if they ever do see the light of day (I remain skeptical :D ).

No I agree absolutely. I'm just querying your usage of the word evidence - I think you mean proof.

No - if I used the word evidence then that is what I meant. As I said above -I am not sure I agree with your usage of the terms - but this is tangental to this debate ;)

[cj.23]

Fair enough. I look forward to reading the results of these studies if they ever do see the light of day (I remain skeptical :D ).



His 2004 paper, referred to earlier was published - see his web page...
http://www.theparapsychologist.com/aboutme.php?id=sec53#anc32

Just noticed it. :D

cj x

[Dr B]

His 2004 paper, referred to earlier was published - see his web page...
http://www.theparapsychologist.com/aboutme.php?id=sec53#anc32

Just noticed it. :D

cj x


Actually it is not published at all. It is on there as a conference abstract (unless I have been looking at the wrong entry).

So - I am not sure it really counts as a peer-reviewed empirical contribution - though it does explain why I have never heard of it :D

Conference abstracts are not really scrutinised in the same manner that a research paper is and are not really the best source - though they are of course interesting in their own right :cool:

[cj.23]

Yes, I read your paper with interest...

Comments removed by request.

Thanks to the mods who edited this at my request. I said some harsh things about excellent sceptical groups, individuals and a website. I felt these comments just came down to childish "point scoring" and asked for them to be removed as they reflected badly on persons and groups whom I have much respect for. We all make mistakes, and I don't like being unpleasant, and my comments could be read as generalisations. I apologise to those concerned...

cj x

[Dr B]

If your comments were relevant to the debates (and not just ad-homs) feel free to PM me as I would be happy to consider them.

I noted to you above - some time ago - that our discussion here is not an 'us versus them' type debate. I do think skeptics could have done a better job when considering infrasound. However, I also think parapsychologists could have done a better job as well. This, for me, is not point scoring, but an observable fact.

I was amazed that no one else had picked up on the problems with the infrasound account over the years since the initial publications of Tandy and cover them in a detailed discussion and critique :eek:

On another side-issue. I have read a recent article in FT (sent to me by a friend) which mentions our critique (maybe this was the paper you alluded to earlier)- but it also makes a fallacy and misrepresentation error in discussing our paper. The authors (one of which I think is Alan Murdie) state that, in Tandy's defence he never claimed it was a theory for all accounts, just some accounts.

The reason this is no defence at all is as follows. Firstly, we fully acknolwedged this in our critique and very much set the context of our points within that framework. So all our points can viewed in the knowledge that we are talking about the theoretical cases where Tandy would predict a component due to infrasound. Secondly, an implausible idea is implausible whether you claim it is relevant for 1% or 99% of cases. In other words - its totally irrelvant as infrasound is unlikely to be involved in any experience. This second point is far more problematic.

If I told you the earth was flat some of the time - or all of the time - I am still wrong. :cool:

[cj.23]

Secondly, an implausible idea is implausible whether you claim it is relevant for 1% or 99% of cases. In other words - its totally irrelvant as infrasound is unlikely to be involved in any experience. This second point is far more problematic.

If I told you the earth was flat some of the time - or all of the time - I am still wrong. :cool:


His argument was, and always was, that a very few, and we are talking one in X thousands people according to Tandy , experience an "allergy" type effect. That remains plausible - your analogy fails here, for obvious reasons.

You had already read and responded to the deleted comments - which were on sceptical sites perpetuation of the ideas. I mentioned the uncritical nature of the Skepdic article, but was unduly harsh.

j x

[Dr B]

His argument was, and always was, that a very few, and we are talking one in X thousands people according to Tandy , experience an "allergy" type effect.

eerrrr I know that - I said it above and in the article so not sure why you are repeating it :boggled:

In addition - his argument was, and is, unsubstantiated and thats my point. Logically speaking, it does not stand up either. I doubt it has the capacity to ever be true, but in science we can never say for sure. The biophysics of his suggestions dont stand up and indeed, biophsyics suggests they cannot (at the figures and levels he suggested).


That remains plausible - your analogy fails here, for obvious reasons.


Your are quite wrong here as you misunderstand me completely. Please explain how an idea, which has been shown to be implausible - thus is unlikely to ever work - can be right some of the time???? While doing this - make sure you point me in the direction of the evidence which would even 'suggest' its plausibility.

So my analogy, while certainly flipant, works perfectly. It is your reasoning on this issue that I find somewhat failing.

[cj.23]

Your are quite wrong here as you misunderstand me completely. Please explain how an idea, which has been shown to be implausible - thus is unlikely to ever work - can be right some of the time???? While doing this - make sure you point me in the direction of the evidence which would even 'suggest' its plausibility.

So my analogy, while certainly flipant, works perfectly. It is your reasoning on this issue that I find somewhat failing.

You wrote


Secondly, an implausible idea is implausible whether you claim it is relevant for 1% or 99% of cases. In other words - its totally irrelvant as infrasound is unlikely to be involved in any experience. This second point is far more problematic.

If I told you the earth was flat some of the time - or all of the time - I am still wrong.


OK, person X is allergic to Brazil nuts, and eating brazil nuts has a very detrimental effect on their health. Person Y to Person XYYYYYXXXXXXXCCCZ - many thousands of people do not have such a reaction.

Sorry Dr B, but it entirely possible that allergies can be as implausible as "nuts make you ill."

I have no idea at all of the science of the case, but i can apply reason here. A very small percentage of people are often effected by thing which most are not. Another example is loud noises - most people might jump if i set off a siren behind them. I presume the totally deaf would not? And so on...

You are asserting it is unlikely that a certain phenomena will effect people. I agree in this case, and think you are probably right. However the generalised principle you draw for the analogy is clearly fallacious, and Tandy was right to consider it.

cj x

[Dr B]

You wrote
OK, person X is allergic to Brazil nuts, and eating brazil nuts has a very detrimental effect on their health. Person Y to Person XYYYYYXXXXXXXCCCZ - many thousands of people do not have such a reaction.

Sorry Dr B, but it entirely possible that allergies can be as implausible as "nuts make you ill."


OK - here is why you are quite wrong and digging yourself into a hole. You set out assuming - that which you seek to establish is true in the first place (this is a logical fallacy as I am sure you know). You automatically assume this notion of 'allergy' - I dont and Tandy provides no evidence for it either - its a metaphorically nonsense as applied to infrasound.

Person X can be shown to allergic to nuts - if its real - but not to an implausible mechansim???? You cannot be allergic to something that cannot affect you! You see, you are also using a plausible mechanism as a metaphor (the nut analogy - which may or may not have an accepted mechanism) to set up an argument for an implausible one (for which there is no mechanism). It does not work and I see straight through it. :cool:

My argument is not that infrasound is implausible for some - its that, based on the arguments so far presented, it is implausible period. Weak energies of less than 50db and less than 20Hz have no effects on the brain...if they did, then we would all be in trouble as these levels exist in the background everywhere.



I have no idea at all of the science of the case, but i can apply reason here.

No - sorry - you are not applying reason at all. I have pointed out above why.
I know you think you are - but you are not.


A very small percentage of people are often effected by thing which most are not.

This is not evidence for infrasound - so why is it relevant? No one is allergic to something that cannot affect them! You see the concept is logically flawed. To make your argument work you have to show how we can all be, or some of us can be, biophysically influenced by something which is biophysically implausible to have an influence. I wish you well with that ;) .


Another example is loud noises - most people might jump if i set off a siren behind them. I presume the totally deaf would not? And so on...


Irrelevant analogy again - intense sound exists as vibration and can be felt by the deaf.....sorry this does not work. All sound is air vibration, but not all air vibration is sound. Also, you are using known mechanisms to explain an unknown one - it is the fallacy (again) of the irrelevant analogy.


You are asserting it is unlikely that a certain phenomena will effect people. I agree in this case, and think you are probably right. However the generalised principle you draw for the analogy is clearly fallacious,

No its not - your argument is. You are making an argument in the absence of evidence, and drawing on false analogies, that beg the question, and induce circular reasoning....how many fallacies do you need to show an argument is unsound?

My flipant example earlier was that it is implausible for the earth to be flat all of the time and some of the time. It is also implausible to claim for infrasound to impact on a small or large number of people - if it simply cannot impact on anyone at all per-se.....

Again - feel free to show me the evidence that suggests true-infrasound can have the effects Tandy prescribed to it.....until you do that, the logic is flawed.

[cj.23]

I was quite clear I was accepting you may be right in this particular. :) M y problem is with


Secondly, an implausible idea is implausible whether you claim it is relevant for 1% or 99% of cases.

That is simply not true, as I repeated as a general principle. You just evaded that point by waffling on about the specific case - not under question -, and making amusing assertions about my capacity for reasoning...

An implausible idea can be plausible in a limited case. Quantum mechanics are implausible in many cases - but move to the relevant level and they apply consistently and are entirely sensible.

I'm sorry -I was disputing your analogies logic, not your science. I don't doubt you can do some science. :)

cj x

[Dr B]

I was quite clear I was accepting you may be right in this particular. :)


I accept that ;)


That is simply not true, as I repeated as a general principle. You just evaded that point by waffling on about the specific case - not under question -, and making amusing assertions about my capacity for reasoning...

It is true and I did not waffle about anything - just because I illustrated why your resoning is not working does not make it waffle. You still have to make a case for an implausible mechanism as I see it.


An implausible idea can be plausible in a limited case.

Rubbish - this is not an implausible case and you misunderstand the terminology. If it's plausible in some cases it is no longer implausible at all.

If the case for something is implausible - period - then there are no known circumstances under which it could conceivably be true. Now, this does not prove it false of course, but it shows that it is implausible in all conceivable cases.


Quantum mechanics are implausible in many cases - but move to the relevant level and they apply consistently and are entirely sensible.


But have no known relationship to the macrolevel and indeed, many would hold QM is implausible as an explanation for many things. Anyway, getting off topic.....

You are trying to say that infrasound could be plausible at the macro-level (perception / behaviour) for some people. Not true - and you have not furnished this idea with any evidence. I have argued in the paper it is biopshycially implausible, at least as tandy suggested it.

Could it be revised and made to fit an idea? Well, of course - but thats not the argument we are making. My hunch is all documented effects on behaviour and perception involve low-frequency - but high-amplitude sound (thus can be heard) - this is not infrasound.


I'm sorry -I was disputing your analogies logic, not your science. I don't doubt you can do some science. :)

No worries - but i have shown to you why my reasoning, logic and argument is on firmer ground than yours and why it is sound. I take my logic as seriously as my science - to me they go hand in hand. ;)

Edit - my analogy was sound (though flipant as mentioned in earlier posts). To me infrasound, as proposed, is as implausible as a flat earth - be it flat all of the time or some of the time.

[cj.23]

Rubbish - this is not an implausible case and you misunderstand the terminology. If it's plausible in some cases it is no longer implausible at all.

If the case for something is implausible - period - then there are no known circumstances under which it could conceivably be true. Now, this does not prove it false of course, but it shows that it is implausible in all conceivable cases.

If something is implausible in case X, it may well be plausible in case Y. That is my sole argument with you here ,and I don't see how you can possibly refute it.


You are trying to say that infrasound could be plausible at the macro-level (perception / behaviour) for some people. Not true - and you have not furnished this idea with any evidence. I have argued in the paper it is biopshycially implausible, at least as tandy suggested it.


Not true. I said in this particular (instance) I agreed, as i keep saying it's your claim ---


Secondly, an implausible idea is implausible whether you claim it is relevant for 1% or 99% of cases.


that I have a problem with!

The statement "I am a parapsychologist" you might make is implausible in the human condition. It does not prove that parapsychology doe not happen to less than 1% of humans however.

No science involved: just pure formal logic...

cj x

[steenkh]

Have I understood correctly that no one is questioning infrasounds' capability to make people feel unease?

I then ask if not uneasiness can lead to hallucinations in susceptible people? Especially in the dark.

[Dr B]

If something is implausible in case X, it may well be plausible in case Y. That is my sole argument with you here ,and I don't see how you can possibly refute it.


I dont refute it - you have just shifted the definition in terms of the way I used the term 'implausible'. You are being more than a little disingenuous on this matter. It is clear (if you read the paper and my points above) that the collective evidence (that's collective evidence) makes the infrasound account (IS) implausible - period - at least at the theory has currently been suggested. I use the term implausible to count for cases x and y.

What you struggle with is you keep trying to argue for a caveat on the scope of implausibility. This is a caveat I do not share. If I thought IS had any application to a minority of cases then i would have said so - by describing the theory as, limited, not implausible. Now, I suggest you find a case y for IS and come back. Even a reasoned case would do.

By having a condition that is plausible in case Y it is, in my opinion, misleading to even use the phrase 'implausible' at all (even under seletive instances) - and i would never use that terminology under such cases. Indeed I know of no one that would. This is evidenced further by the fact that the word 'implausible' is not frequenctly banded about in science and one needs a really good set of reasons for using it.

All one simply needs to show (in reality) are the conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for the effect to occur. These would constitute the degrees of freedom for the effect and the account. One can then sketch out the context for how the account is supposed to work in an optimal manner.

I note you still have not made the case for an implausible account having a plausible effect ;)


Not true. I said in this particular (instance) I agreed, as i keep saying it's your claim ---


No - its Tandy's claim it works - I'm the one questioning it.



that I have a problem with!
The statement "I am a parapsychologist" you might make is implausible in the human condition. It does not prove that parapsychology doe not happen to less than 1% of humans however.

No science involved: just pure formal logic...


I dont know where you learned your logic - but I would ask for my money back if i were you. :D

I would never make an argument like you are using here and it adds nothing to the debate - yet again you keep recruiting totally irrelevant analogies to try to illustrate your case. So you see, its not pure anything, it is, if anything, quite poor.

It does not prove that it does happen to that 1% either (argument to ignorance?).

You forget that I am arguing with evidence and a reasoned case - you just appear to keep making statements. These are not the same thing. ;)

In my opinion, your argument fudges distinctions and terminology that I never made, goes around in circles and uses irrelevant analogies that do not support your case. I thought you were against misrepresentation of debate?????

Ah well......

Why not make your case for 'Y' within the argument for infrasound without trying to generate irrelevant analogies all the time that do not serve you well.

[Dr B]

Have I understood correctly that no one is questioning infrasounds' capability to make people feel unease?

I then ask if not uneasiness can lead to hallucinations in susceptible people? Especially in the dark.

I can find no evidence for this. All the tests I know of use sound far above the limits of infrasound.

Thus it qualifies only as low-frequency sound - which i think would be bloody annoying :D

Actually, and on a different note, I have suggested in the paper a variety of possible mechanism via which low-frequency sound could induce anomalous perceptions - somewhat akin to what you outline.

However, all these mechanisms are far more indirect than those originally proposed, and ultimately - its still not infrasound!!!!! In addition - its not so much they induce hallucination - but may provide a source of ambiguity under certain circumstances.....but more work is needed on this latter point.

[cj.23]

in brief reply --

Well I shall assume I am indeed wrong. I see no relation between implausibility at a majority, and implausibility at a minority - what is true for 98% and implausible, may be plausible for 2%. That still strikes me as self evident, but if you deny it and claim that is not true, in all cases, well ok. I'm baffled but will concede rather than waste time pursuing it - I might be grasping it slowly. I apologise if I am being dumb.

As to the case in hand - I'll let others try to discuss that. I don't have any relevant expertise, and am not that bothered. We agree after all in being sceptical about the theory as popularly reported, so it seems pointless to row over it.

I have zero expertise in the science of these matters, and so concede whatever point you are arguing.
cj x

[Dr B]

Hi cj

in brief reply --
Well I shall assume I am indeed wrong. I see no relation between implausibility at a macrolevel, and implausibility at a microlevel - what is true for 98% and implausible, may be plausible for 2%.

This is indeed one aspect where we differ. I never introduced the idea of micro-and-macro levels of measurement - you did. I actually think its totally irrelevant for the debate anyway.

What can be demonstrated as implausible for all known instances (at least current instances) can be provisionally classed as implausible full stop. There simply is no known mechanism for such weak infrasound to have an effect, even if we add in susceptibility and make some other sweeping and unfounded assumptions, it still struggles. I have no idea how anything say from 1db to 30db would register in the neural landscape in the context of all the other much higher amplitude noise and signals. It would certainly not vibrate the eyeball as claimed by Tandy (this is implausible at the claimed energy levels).


That still strikes me as self evident, but if you deny it and claim that is not true, in all cases, well ok.

Indeed.


I'm baffled but will concede rather than waste time pursuing it - I might be grasping it slowly. I apologise if I am being dumb.


Not at all - I just reacted to your claims that the logic was flawed - it is not. ;) No worries and no offence taken. Your questions are not dumb at all and I have enjoyed the chat.


As to the case in hand - I'll let others try to discuss that. I don't have any relevant expertise, and am not that bothered. We agree after all in most of this, so it seems pointless to row over it.


Sure thing ;) I never saw it as a row - but it would seem pointless to go around in circles. We clearly agree on most stuff. I would only add that you try to be clear on exactly what we are saying before forming a firm opinion - as you may end up disagreeing with a position and argument that was never made in the first place. ;)