Richard Feynman said, "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves."

But for the kind of rearguard action that started this thread, Fire Investigation, as a forensic science discipline, is doing better than most.

We know there have been mistakes and we know how to address them. In many forensic science disciplines, questioning the fundamental validity of what they do causes practitioners to become apoplectic. Fingerprints, firearms identification (especially shell casings), DNA mixtures and bitemarks all come to mind. Large numbers of practitioners in those disciplines are still in denial. I think most fire investigators got over that about 20 years ago, when NFPA 921 can be said to have become "generally accepted."

For a detailed overview of the history of our profession since the mid-1970s, see Fire Investigation-Historical Perspective and Recent Developments, available here:

[d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net]


Sure, there are still some in denial, but many of those have retired to be replaced by new investigators for whom NFPA 921 has always been a fact of life. To quote another great scientist, Max Planck, "Science advances on funeral at a time."

BTW, Claude Garrett is innocent.