A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Back to basics testing your hypothesis.
Posted by:
greggorbett (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2007 02:58AM
Doug Said: "As an aside, while consensus is important with respect to the acceptance of theories (well established fundamental knowledge) based on scientific findings, it is not part of the testing of hypotheses using the scientific method. Just because eight investigators came to the same conclusion does not make it valid under the scientific method. Although, this seems to happen frequently in my experience. In the same vain, just because eight investigators agree does not make them all correct or all wrong. It is the scientific basis for conclusions that is the appropriate assessment of the validity of a determination based on the scientific method."
While I agree with Dougs statement, I cant help but feel that if investigator #1 provides all of the facts to an equal or greater educated, trained, experienced investigator (2) and investigator #2 can only arrive at the same hypothesis/conclusion fitting those facts that has to be at least a valid test of ones logic. In other words, the review of ones work by another, more seasoned investigator may not be in and of itself substantial enough to state that you have tested your hypothesis, but I believe that it is a great tool or a beginning to tests ones logic. Before I get bombarded with posts I am not advocating the sole use of peer review as testing ones hypothesis, but I do believe that the review of an investigators logic/methodology should be encouraged.
Gregory E. Gorbett, CFEI, IAAI-CFI, MIFireE, CFPS
Fire and Explosion Analyst