Landwater, a Facebook page, has used a logical approach to solve the contradiction between the Afriforum and Knysna Municipality investigations into the cause of the Great Knysna Fire.
Essentially, Afriforum points a finger at government failure to address the Elandskraal fire which became the cause of the Great Knysna Fire.
The Municipality and its Fire Department blames human activity, basing that on a few burnt pine cones and logs of indeterminate origin.
Landwater’s logic favours Afriforum.
ELANDSKRAAL: TWO NEEDLES IN THE SAME HAYSTACK DILEMMA
Consensus: The Fire started in Elandskraal Consensus: The Fire had to start in the north-western edge of Elandskraal, given the burn patterns.
We have a Haystack.
Consensus: There was a natural fire (running for a full 8 weeks leading up to the tragedy) already smouldering in that Haystack.
Consensus: This natural fire was caused by Lightning.
The challenge with an investigation is then NOT to merely accept that the Lightning Fire is the cause, but to factor in that it provides a High Probability of Cause (HPoC).
The role of an investigation is then to try and find evidence to support/negate this HPoC.
If any evidence is found that negates this HPoC, this evidence will have to be really solid, i.e. it will have to provide an even HIGHER Probability of Cause (an IMMENSE Probability of Cause).
What happened here, was that the Knysna Municipality (Fire Brigade) already knew there was one needle, but then they found another.
The scientific probability of finding two needles in the same remote haystack is extremely slim, if not highly improbable.
This inevitably means that support for the second needle (assuming the Lightning Fire was the first needle) should have been ROBUST > scientifically sound and logically persuasive.
Two needles were found when only one was expected. The reasons for this may need to be considered. (Accountability + Transparency)
You can comment on: