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:
dcarpenter (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2021 11:36AM
You can only disprove a hypothesis. You can never prove a hypothesis since at any given time, new evidence can be produced that can disprove the hypothesis. It is a reliable determination until it is not. That is the best we can do with "science."
You have to formulate a valid hypothesis with evidence and you can only disprove a hypothesis with evidence. If you apply the SM without evidence, you are using a negative corpus methodology.
In the distant past, John Lentini has used more of a legal argument for a presumption that a fire was "accidental." That is, "innocent until proven guilty." This qualitatively follows the reliable application of the SM.
I have made the same argument with the application of the Scientific Method and NFPA 921, as previously discussed. The differentiating feature between "accidental" and "incendiary" is evidence of intent.
Same determination using independent methodologies.
Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com