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:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: January 21, 2007 07:34PM
Denny:
All I was trying to make was two points. The first being testing of a hypothesis can never prove a hypothesis but only can disprove a hypothesis. The second, as was reported in the NIST fire pattern testing, fire patterns are not something that can be reproduced the same every time so there is a need for assumptions to be made and these assumptions can cause a difference of opinions.
As to Daubert, we must agree to disagree on that topic. I believe the latest court rulings are showing the intent of Daubert in that they are addressing, not the experts qualifications or findings but just the methodology used. It does not hold the investigator to a specific set of rules as to how the data being used must be collected and evaluated but that these tasks were in some way accomplished. The same goes with the method of testing the hypothesis. I review data from other sources and evaluate it as compared to the data used to develop the hypothesis. I believe this is all the court is requiring.