Not to belabor the issue but I will add this to the discussion: Occam's Razor perfectly applies here.
"Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." In any case, Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Von Däniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient people art and engineering, but we don't need to posit alien visitations in order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a distance, but we don't need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal ether? "
"Today, we think of the principle of parsimony as a heuristic device. We don't assume that the simpler theory is correct and the more complex one false. We know from experience that more often than not the theory that requires more complicated machinations is wrong. Until proved otherwise, the more complex theory competing with a simpler explanation should be put on the back burner, but not thrown onto the trash heap of history until proven false."
Source: http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html
Direct answer to your question: Yes, there's a possibility. But a better
question would be, "What probability might there be...?"
Pretty much anything is possible, but a lot of the possible is
extraordinarily improbable. As a crude example, we know that it's possible
for a five-year-old to drive a car, but it has actually happened only very
rarely, so cops looking for a stolen car would not start out looking for a
five-year-old.
Two things I've heard Dr. Kate and/or her colleagues say on TV are important
for us to remember, lest we go off on conspiracy-theory or other tangents:
1. The human brain seeks order, patterns, and meaning, but this becomes a
problem where there is no order, pattern, or meaning.
2. (Invariable response to any question not directly on seismology): "That's
out of my area of expertise." (The lesson for us all is, don't say more than
you know. The true experts don't, but typically, those who know the least
say the most [and the loudest].)
And for Thursday evening, the answer to, "What happened?" was, "We don't
know."
For Friday, the question is, "How did it happen?", and the answer is again,
"We don't know."
I will say this much: Leaking gas (in a combustible concentration) and a
source of ignition obviously met. But that answer leaves a LOT unanswered.
We know that a large/powerful source of ignition was not necessary, only a
large area of combustible concentration of gas. Once the gas was ignited,
the area of gas and the volume coming from the source were major factors in
the amount of fire. Still, this leaves a LOT unanswered.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Infowolf1@aol.com>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] NCSN seismic data - San Bruno explosion??
any possibility, that someone knowing the leak so impending failure
was going on, decided to ignite it as a terrorist act?
![]()
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment