Good argument Pat!

I am not trying to suggest that SHC actually exists but should we actually "deny where we came from?" This is a valid area of research. Not the actual act itself, but the reporting and documenting of. This trade is no different from any other trade in that we have grown with better education and technology. Look at Bertillon and his uses of anthropology in the criminal justice system. He suggsted that if you had a big nose, you were likely to be a pickpocket etc. Yes, now its "claptrap" but it is still discussed and researched in the forensic science world. Its from discussing this "claptrap" that further areas of research comes to light. Personally, I am seeking information on documented cases of SHC. I accept that these would probably prove to be false but its not just that finding of SHC I am interested in but all the things that go with it ie what made the FI suggest this as a finding in the first place, did the FI have any access to previously published cases of SHC, did this sway his findings, did the media play a part, was there religious, financial or political reasoning behind the findings that hindsight/research could disprove?

Is research such a bad thing? My paper is only a small part of a larger research programme involving fire investigation training in the 21st century and as such I think that good research into any subject is never wasted. When I teach young students I want them to know about this "claptrap" as you put it. I want them to become involved in a trade that is not frightened to discuss mistakes made in the past. From this we can all grow.


Oh, and laying on hands?........my wife's pretty good at it!

Regards.

Gareth