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: It's a paradigm
Posted by:
SJAvato (IP Logged)
Date: February 21, 2007 08:02PM
Jim, that is a great way to phrase the concept. I agree that part of the problem is how the document is used (often in a quest to discredit an expert or suppress alternate data interpretation) not necessarily the information contained in it. I think that that has led many investigators to fear the document rather than to embrace it for the value that it has in raising the professionalism of our endeavors. One of the issues that Kuhn points out is that, sometimes, science accepts their field's paradigm too dogmatically, which prevents certain segments from generally accepting new concepts. Kuhn uses an example that is very germane to fire investigation; the disproof of the phlogiston hypothesis and the disagreement between Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley (for more on the "discovery" of oxygen, see "A World on Fire" by Joe Jackson.) Kuhn said "... the fact that a major paradigm revision was needed to see what Lavoisier saw must be the principal reason why Priestley was, to the end of his long life, unable to see it." (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition) These major paradigm shifts are the revolutions of science. We can guard against the necessity for revolutions by keeping an open mind about our "paradigm" and allow it to grow gradually as new information and knowledge are developed, accepting each change as it becomes verifiable. In essence, the field is allowed to evolve and avoid the crises that typically result in revolutionary changes.
Steve