Denny:

I do not believe we can arbitrarily say that no type of peer review is acceptable. From you posting it would suggest that if I could not conduct a test or experimentation on the topic then my hypothesis could not be considered correct. My only option would be to find some documentation where testing had been conducted under the same conditions that supported my idea as to what took place. If this could not be found then my hypothesis would be considered incorrect. I do not believe a hypothesis can be disproved through these types of negative conditions. If you submit you hypothesis and the method used in developing the hypothesis to several individual, and these individuals through their own independent research test you hypothesis and reach the same answer is that not a good methodology for testing your hypothesis. I am not saying this proves you hypothesis a being correct, because I do not believe a hypothesis can be proven but only disprove. I am not saying you are wrong but just that I believe peer review is another source of data to compare to the data used in reaching a hypothesis.

I would agree with you if fire investigation was a pure science to where in a controlled environment there was the possibility to accurately reproduce the data. We know from testing conducted by NIST this is not possible. Maybe the general use of the words “peer review” may not be an accurate way of describing this method of testing one’s hypothesis. One develops a hypothesis after evaluating all available data. From this the person has a number of different ways to test this hypothesis. Remember one can never prove a hypothesis, only disprove the hypothesis. There are three ways, accepted by most of the scientific community, for a hypothesis to be disproved, and these are:

1. Date is found which contradicts the hypothesis.
2. In replicating the event the same base data fails to reproduce the same event.
3. It is supplanted by a new hypothesis which explains more of the data, or explains the same data more elegantly.

Two of the three ways of deriving additional information to disprove a hypothesis can have a direct relationship to peer review. As an example, if I were to tell you my hypothesis and you would suggest an alterative hypothesis to answer the problem then I now must address your hypothesis as a possibility of meeting the requirements of number one or three of the list above.

921 allows for the testing of one’s hypothesis by two methods. The first is cognitive and the second is experimental. I would suggest this in itself is stating there is more than just the experimental methodology for testing a hypothesis.

The term cognitive is not a complicated as it may seem. Because it is a word not often used in our profession, it may seem to some as a completed process. The cognitive methods deal directly with thinking or the mental process of problem solving. Problem solving forms a part of our thinking process.
A single test, if confirmed, may disprove a hypothesis but it cannot prove it to be correct. A given series of tests may corroborate the hypothesis, but subsequent experiments under different conditions may disprove it. Therefore, there is no absolute knowledge in science. There is only progress--optimistically--toward a more complete and accurate understanding of the natural world. But at any time current scientific opinion may be overthrown by new observations, by better theories.