Ghosts - what the real deal here?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is not evidence of anything - and besides the whole infrasound thing has been questioned and largely de-bunked.



Tandy knew the area had a reputation - also there are no psychological effects from true-infrasound (thats low frequency and low intensitiy - below the threashold of hearing). If you read all the published data (from the proper studies) they all use very high amplitudes of low-frequency sound where the level of sound is almost painful to listen to. This is nothing like what tandy described in a quiet room......

As far as I am aware, there are no psychological effects of sub-threashold infrasound on the brain. There are effects of 'cusp of hearing sound' but this is merely mis-perception.

Also, the NASA report did not use infrasound - just actual physical vibration of given frequencies and its actually quiet a hodege-podge of a study and often mis understood.

That's interesting, can you cite any studies in particular?

 

[wardenclyffe]

...As for independent research, I still haven't learned how to dedicate fewer hours to teaching...

I didn't mean to suggest that you should devote your whole life to historical research. I just meant that you might have fun devoting whatever time you used to devote to ghosts to something like history which you seem to enjoy---thank (in part) to your former belief in ghosts.

Good luck,
Ward

 

[MummRa]

I just meant that you might have fun devoting whatever time you used to devote to ghosts to something like history which you seem to enjoy---thank (in part) to your former belief in ghosts.

Good luck,
Ward

Gotcha. And I have taken that time to do something else, but not history. I am indulging my love of the universe and astrophysics now. That's how I stumbled across Neil DeGrasse Tyson and (eventually) TAM. Hooray!

 

[Dr B]

That's interesting, can you cite any studies in particular?

Absolutely.....

Braithwaite, J.J. (2006) Good vibrations: The case for a specific effect of infrasound in instances of anomalous experience has yet to be empirically demonstrated. Journal of Psychical Research, 70, 885, 211-224.

I often find it interesting that the studies arguing for effects seem to get more attention than those which argue against it. The debunking in the above paper was published over 5 years ago yet many - including parapsychologists - remain unaware.....

 

[Resume]

parapsychologists - remain unaware:

Newsflash.

 

[Dr B]

The point was they dont even read their own literature. In addition, some mainstream researchers working in this topic area ignore the arguments against it - so its not as straightforward as you imply.

Its no newsflash to me - but it is always frustrating and dissapointing when you are reminded of it....

 

[Resume]

The point was they dont even read their own literature. In addition, some mainstream researchers working in this topic area ignore the arguments against it - so its not as straightforward as you imply.

Its no newsflash to me - but it is always frustrating and dissapointing when you are reminded of it....

Expect to be dissapointed and frustrated if you continue to follow the paranormal threads here.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Gotcha. And I have taken that time to do something else, but not history. I am indulging my love of the universe and astrophysics now. That's how I stumbled across Neil DeGrasse Tyson and (eventually) TAM. Hooray!

Then you absolutely seem to be on the right track.

Ward

 

[Dr B]

Expect to be dissapointed and frustrated if you continue to follow the paranormal threads here.

Good point - and I am. But sometimes I am also dissapointed on how little skeptics know about this area as well. Quite often the debates do not reach the standard one would find really useful. I am generalising of course.....

A classic one I see aroud here is the "its just apophenia" type response from some who think this is a viable explanation on its own. At conferences and skeptical meetings I often ask people, is apophenia a problem of perception or emotion? Or both? I am nearly always met with silence and the individual has not considered the issue beyond what they think is the answer (which is really just a label).

My point is, if we are all hard-wired to see patterns in noise - how does this explain why only some go on to develop paranormal beliefs or perceptions? There must be something else as well. It could be an issue of bias in the hardwiring and some people are even more 'hard-wired' or prone (though this goes against a strict notion of hard-wiring).

Is it that people really do 'see' things that the rest of us dont (which goes against the notion we are all predisposed) or is it that beleivers see what we all do (faces in noise etc) but just have a stronger emotional response to that perception and this impacts on belief evaluation and leads to delusion.

I've never seen 'so called' skeptics discuss this at length as they themselves are comfortable with the 'its just apophenia' statement as an explanation. To my mind - there are some important studies investigating perceptual and emotional responses to be done here - before these comments can become more satisfactory.

I am of course generalising again here - but the point stands with that qualification

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good point - and I am. But sometimes I am also dissapointed on how little skeptics know about this area as well. Quite often the debates do not reach the standard one would find really useful. I am generalising of course.....

A classic one I see aroud here is the "its just apophenia" type response from some who think this is a viable explanation on its own. At conferences and skeptical meetings I often ask people, is apophenia a problem of perception or emotion? Or both? I am nearly always met with silence and the individual has not considered the issue beyond what they think is the answer (which is really just a label).

My point is, if we are all hard-wired to see patterns in noise - how does this explain why only some go on to develop paranormal beliefs or perceptions? There must be something else as well. It could be an issue of bias in the hardwiring and some people are even more 'hard-wired' or prone (though this goes against a strict notion of hard-wiring).

Is it that people really do 'see' things that the rest of us dont (which goes against the notion we are all predisposed) or is it that beleivers see what we all do (faces in noise etc) but just have a stronger emotional response to that perception and this impacts on belief evaluation and leads to delusion.

I've never seen 'so called' skeptics discuss this at length as they themselves are comfortable with the 'its just apophenia' statement as an explanation. To my mind - there are some important studies investigating perceptual and emotional responses to be done here - before these comments can become more satisfactory.

I am of course generalising again here - but the point stands with that qualification

While I agree that those would be interesting studies, I don't really see how those studies not having been done invalidates apophenia as a valid explanation.

I mean, sure, if it's being put forth as "all ghost sightings are definitely apophenia", say, then that's not really something that it's valid to say. But if the question is "can you explain anecdote x without a paranormal explanation?" then "yes, apophenia is a reasonable explanation and, given that it doesn't require anything beyond what is known to be possible, it's a better explanation than anything paranormal" is a perfectly cromulant answer.

 

[Dr B]

My point is simply saying 'its apophenia' - is not sufficient as a mechanistic explanation. If you think I am wrong, try and publish that in a scientific journal and see how far you get....

Its just a label, a statement. It may well be generically true - but i would prefer more detail for it to qualify as an explanation for me.

 

[Dr B]

But if the question is "can you explain anecdote x without a paranormal explanation?" then "yes, apophenia is a reasonable explanation and, given that it doesn't require anything beyond what is known to be possible, it's a better explanation than anything paranormal" is a perfectly cromulant answer.

No - its no explanation on its own at all. Its just a label, a statement.
If it is such a powerful explanation then how does the basic statement 'its just apophenia' explain the following;

"We are all hard-wired and prone to experience apophenia. However, only some go on to have reputed paranormal experiences that may be based in these processes. So how does such a general and common process explain a more selective and specific effect in only certain observers?"

 

[Pixel42]

My point is, if we are all hard-wired to see patterns in noise - how does this explain why only some go on to develop paranormal beliefs or perceptions?

Because not everyone bothers to look for non-paranormal explanations like apophenia. Most people have never even heard of apophenia, assume that their personal perceptions are more reliable than any other source of knowledge, including decades of careful scientific investigation, and like to believe there are mysteries which science cannot explain.

Even those who do eventually come across alternative explanations such as faulty perceptions for their experiences are usually by then so emotionally invested in the beliefs they have based on them that they regard such explanations as personal insults. The number of people who come to boards like this with their personal anecdotes who persist in hearing "you are most likely honestly mistaken" as "you are either lying or deluded", no matter how patiently we try to explain the difference, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My point is simply saying 'its apophenia' - is not sufficient as a mechanistic explanation. If you think I am wrong, try and publish that in a scientific journal and see how far you get....

Its just a label, a statement. It may well be generically true - but i would prefer more detail for it to qualify as an explanation for me.

No - its no explanation on its own at all. Its just a label, a statement.
If it is such a powerful explanation then how does the basic statement 'its just apophenia' explain the following;

"We are all hard-wired and prone to experience apophenia. However, only some go on to have reputed paranormal experiences that may be based in these processes. So how does such a general and common process explain a more selective and specific effect in only certain observers?"

Neither of these two posts either addresses or counters what I said in my post. You're asking me to defend statements I didn't make.

 

[Dr B]

Neither of these two posts either addresses or counters what I said in my post. You're asking me to defend statements I didn't make.

Yes they do - you just dont understand it. Actually, I could say the same thing about your post in relation to mine.
Your logic is its 'better' than a paranormal one. Firstly, you need to make that case (I agree with btw - but i have my own arguments for why i do) and secondly I can think of many scientific explanations that make totally different assumptions than apophenia and can explain the phenonmena equally well, if not better. What now for apophenia? You see, its all about making scientific arguments and not hiding behind nebulous labels.

 

[Dr B]

Because not everyone bothers to look for non-paranormal explanations like apophenia. Most people have never even heard of apophenia, assume that their personal perceptions are more reliable than any other source of knowledge, including decades of careful scientific investigation, and like to believe there are mysteries which science cannot explain.

Quite true and I agree. However, quite often the interpretation of the experience is immediate (as the perception is occurring). So I think it would be really interesting to investigate whether the biases are perceptual or emotional (or both). So perhaps we all see the faces in noise, but our emotional response is less than those who 'feel' a spiritual aspect or paranormal one (again as the experience is occuring). This would certainly impact on the individuals motivation to seek other explanations or not as the case might be.

Even those who do eventually come across alternative explanations such as faulty perceptions for their experiences are usually by then so emotionally invested in the beliefs they have based on them that they regard such explanations as personal insults. The number of people who come to boards like this with their personal anecdotes who persist in hearing "you are most likely honestly mistaken" as "you are either lying or deluded", no matter how patiently we try to explain the difference, never ceases to amaze me.

Again - I agree. However, I think its more helpful to explain the process of delusion during such engagement - though I've had certain interactions where no amount of reason or evidence is enough for some people...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes they do - you just dont understand it.

Oh, you're one of those posters, are you? I predict I'll very quickly decide that this conversation isn't worth either the time or effort if there's much more of that kind of thing.

Actually, I could say the same thing about your post in relation to mine.

Except that mine directly addresses what you have said and has a call for clarification in it. It's probably worth noting that you have chosen not to clarify.

Your logic is its 'better' than a paranormal one.

I'm not sure I'd say it's "my" logic but, yes, an explanation which fits the known laws of physics should normally be preferred over one which doesn't.

Firstly, you need to make that case[...]

Do I really? Something that doesn't violate the laws of physics is a preferable explanation for an anecdote than something which doesn't? Isn't the non-violation of the laws of physics a good case in and of itself?

[...]and secondly I can think of many scientific explanations that make totally different assumptions than apophenia and can explain the phenonmena equally well, if not better.

Good for you.

What now for apophenia?

What about it? That you can think of an alternate naturalistic explanation for a particular anecdote does not mean that apophenia isn't a better explanation than a paranormal one.

You see, its all about making scientific arguments and not hiding behind nebulous labels.

For the vast majority of anecdotes there is no such thing as a scientific argument. The only thing it's possible to do is to give plausible explanations. It's not possible to determine which explanation is the correct one, and often not even possible to determine which naturalistic explanation is the most likely. All you can do is offer plausible naturalistic explanations as more likely alternatives to paranormal ones.

 

[Dr B]

Oh, you're one of those posters, are you?

I'm the sort of poster who can tell when people dont know what they are talking about and do not extend the common decency to others to listen to the points being made.

I predict I'll very quickly decide that this conversation isn't worth either the time or effort if there's much more of that kind of thing.

Of course you will - but that does not make you correct. You have not tackled a single point I have made. You seem to have a very high opinion of your views being the right ones. If you look closely at what I am saying - its not what you 'think' I am saying.

Except that mine directly addresses what you have said and has a call for clarification in it. It's probably worth noting that you have chosen not to clarify.

No - look again. You went off on a tangent and had a rant about things I never mentioned - i will deconstruct your earlier post more comprehensively shortly when i get more time.

I'm not sure I'd say it's "my" logic but, yes, an explanation which fits the known laws of physics should normally be preferred over one which doesn't.

Thats a slight shift on your earlier comments but my point is - you are not promoting skepticism if you do not engage in communicating why the scientific explanations are more sound. I agree with you about how a normal expalnation is always preferable over supernatural nonsnese - of course it is and absolutely nothing i have said above goes against that. I challenge you to find it in what i said.

You clearly have missed the point in the subtle nature of the illustration I was using. Bascially, I am saying statements like 'its just apophenia' are not explanations and such statements are not sufficient on their own. They are the start of the conversation - not the end of it.

Such statements may or may not be generically correct - but you need empirical evidence of how it works and what it is (i.e., perceptual / emotional - what I've been sayign all along) to make a more mechanistic argument to promote that scientific understanding to all audiences. Just shouting 'apophenia' all the time is close to useless as an explanation. If some wannabe skeptics cannot see the need to provide a justified explanation then I have little to say to them and they are certainly no practising skepticism.

Do I really? Something that doesn't violate the laws of physics is a preferable explanation for an anecdote than something which doesn't? Isn't the non-violation of the laws of physics a good case in and of itself?

This just proves you are not listening. I never made that argument. leave supernatural explanations aside - there could be tens of natural explanations - we need to evaluate those for which are more relevant. if you cannot see the need for that - I cannot see why you are here.

Good for you.

You missed the point - again. The point I made is the one you are not recognising even though i know you cannot answer it. In some ways you are representing the approach i was discussing in the very original post.

That you can think of an alternate naturalistic explanation for a particular anecdote does not mean that apophenia isn't a better explanation than a paranormal one.

Again you are stretching my point. My point is we do not know much about apophenia as a process - not whether or not it exists or is ultimately correct (i've ackowledged this all along). You are building a straw man - you will need to be better at this to get it past me without it being challenged. Again, go back and read the original post. All I am asking for is clarity as to what apophenia is and the fact it amazes me many wannabe skeptics are just as comfortable with terms they think are detailed explanations as the believers are with their gods....

The only thing it's possible to do is to give plausible explanations.

This does not go against anything I have said.

It's not possible to determine which explanation is the correct one, and often not even possible to determine which naturalistic explanation is the most likely. All you can do is offer plausible naturalistic explanations as more likely alternatives to paranormal ones.

i do not share your pessimistic view and besides - thats not the argument I am making. I am saying people throw what they think are 'explanations' around and when you quizz them on it - they dont know much about it. So why should I believe a skeptic who cannot provide a reason to believe them?
Simply saying - well, thats what Randi says...is not a reason (and trust me - people have said that as a reason). I find your last point something of an excuse for the fact you dont know the evidence for apophenia and / or what it is, the limitations of it as an explanation, the actual empirical evidence for it, the percpetual components of it, the emotional components of it, and how it impacts on the belief evaluation process.

I am only really pointing out that considerable refienment is required - not that it is ultimately incorrect.

 

[Resume]

Is it that people really do 'see' things that the rest of us dont (which goes against the notion we are all predisposed) or is it that beleivers see what we all do (faces in noise etc) but just have a stronger emotional response to that perception and this impacts on belief evaluation and leads to delusion.

Yes.

 

[Dr B]

Yes.

Interesting and this is what i suspected ....what papers do you have for this?