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 Doug’s statement, I can’t 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 one’s logic. In other words, the review of one’s 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 one’s logic. Before I get bombarded with posts – I am not advocating the sole use of “peer review” as testing one’s hypothesis, but I do believe that the review of an investigator’s logic/methodology should be encouraged.

Gregory E. Gorbett, CFEI, IAAI-CFI, MIFireE, CFPS
Fire and Explosion Analyst