Infrasound de-bunked?

[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.

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

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

 

[cj.23]

Yes, I read your paper with interest...

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

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

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.

 

[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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.