Explosives, explosions, and loud noises: A Rant
Executive Summary
The use of "explosive" and "explosion" interchangeably in discussion is erroneous; and the use of "explosions" as evidence of "explosives" is fundamentally flawed.
Loud Noises (aka bangs, booms, cracks, explosions (heard but not seen) etc)
Q. What are loud noises?
A. Within the context of this post I will be defining loud noises as "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise (def. #1)
Explosions
Q. What are explosions?
A. Wikipedia defines Explosions
WP as "a sudden increase in
volume and release of
energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high
temperatures and the release of
gases. An explosion causes
pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as
deflagrations if these waves are
subsonic and
detonations if they are
supersonic (
shock waves)."
Q. What are causes of explosions?
A. The Wikipedia article on Explosions
WP lists a number of causes of explosions:
- Chemical explosions
- Nuclear explosions
- Steam boiler explosions
- Electrical explosions
- Volcanic explosions
- Astronomical event explosions and
- Exploding animals
Explosives
Q. What are explosives?
A. Wikipedia defines Explosives
WP as "a material that either is
chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the
explosion."
The Logic
Argument 1
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: An explosive is detonated;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.
This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true by definition of what an explosive does and is included in the definition of things that can cause explosions.
This is known as
affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 2
P1: If there is an explosion, then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, it was heard as a loud noise.
This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true as, by definition, explosions create shock-waves. The shock-waves are heard and meet the criteria of being a loud noise.
This is known as
affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 3
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.
This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as
affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.
The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.
Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.
It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.
Therefore, we would have to be able to say:
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: Only explosions can cause loud noises;
P3: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.
This is clearly an untenable argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 4
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.
This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as
affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.
The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.
Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.
It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.
This requirement means that for proponent of CD in the WTC to claim that witness reports of explosions are evidence of the use of explosives the following must be true:
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: Only explosives can cause explosions;
P3: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.
This clearly runs counter to the definition of what an explosion is, and is shown to not be true by the examples cited for causes of explosions that do not fall in to the category of explosives. Therefore, this is also an untenable argument.
What does this mean for discussion?
It means that...
- ... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion
- ... if a witness reported seeing an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosive
- ... the term "explosion" and "explosive" can not be used interchangeably
http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!347.entry
