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: So no causes what do yall think.
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2021 03:24PM
It is John Lentini has said an investigator should start off with the hypothesis that the cause of the fire was accidental, then the investigator sets out to prove that hypothesis as being false. Many scientists use this methodology in their research. Using that method, the person first defines a question to be answered. The initial observations may lead to several questions about what took place. The next step is making a hypothesis. In this method the hypothesis is an “uncertain explanation” or an unproven conjecture that seeks to explain some phenomenon based on knowledge obtained while executing subsequent experiments or observations. Generally, scientists develop multiple hypotheses to address their questions and test them systematically. Following the formulation of hypotheses, scientists plan and conduct experiments to test their hypotheses. These experiments provide data that will either support or falsify the hypothesis. Data can be collected from quantitative or qualitative observations. The next step is the results and data analysis. This step involves determining what the results from the experiment mean. The final step is the conclusion. It calls for the observation and then based on this observation and question to be answered.
I guarantee you if you use this process, you will have people calling it negative corpus.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group