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:
Tim Pullen (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2007 08:40AM
My personal approach to this has been to use the locally available experts involved in the fire investigation. My work is always on the road, and the others involved are experts in areas different from fire, i.e., electrical, propane, refrigeration, etc. If the story (hypothesis) developed can explain what happened, and not violate any of the principles either of fire development or of the other specialist technical areas involved, then it holds together. Discussing/debating the hypothesis with others who are experts but not fire investigators is as far as I am concerned the best peer review that I can achieve with the resources at hand at the time of the investigation.
The idea of a true scientific peer review is an ideal that will be virtually impossible to achieve in most real world cases due to the time and complexity of meeting the criteria listed above. The time required will be extensive, and most investigators dont have the luxury of waiting weeks for feedback on their hypothesis so that they can then go back to the fire scene and find the necessary information to modify it so that it works.
Ours is a practical trade with scientific requirements, and we must not forget the one in focusing on the other.