I think we are not far off. Our definitions are a little different but go along the same lines. I do not differentiate between evidence and data. Both have the same features. They can be relevant or not relevant. What is not relevant at one point in the investigation may be relevant at another point of the investigation. I agree as to what you say about for sale signs.

Maybe I am not clearly communicating my reasoning about subjectivity as it applies to the scientific method. The subjectivity in my opinion comes when we are called upon to collect and analyze the data collected.

Some of the most commonly used methods of gathering data during the qualitative research are observation, analysis, interview, research, and case study. The subjectivity is always present in the qualitative research, but this is not necessarily bad things, as long as the researchers are aware of the threats, and use subjectivity to fulfill the research objectives.

The scientific method is nothing more than a systematic approach to guide the person using a specific methodology for scientific research. Fire investigation is nothing more than scientific research with the purpose of reaching a scientific based conclusion. There is support for subjectivity in science. One in in the article I cited, Objectivity and Subjectivity in Scientific Research. Does not 921 address interviews? Is that not one of the first steps in the scientific method under collect data is to conduct interviews. What we learn from interviews is subjective data. Objective data is what we learn from observations. If one were to say that the scientific method does not include subjective data, then it is saying the interviews are not necessary because they are not part of the process. Subjective data comes from data that is collected through personal interactions. I believe this supports the idea of subjectivity being part of the data collection called for by the scientific method.

No one is perfect. We all have bias of some type. When analyzing data or evidence that bias is there. We attempt to control that bias through the test of one’s hypothesis. What the scientific method is to do is minimize the influence of our bias on the results.

Even the best-intentioned person using the scientific method cannot escape bias. What must be done is the control of that bias. Bias results from personal experience. Unfortunately, this filtering process can cause a person to prefer one outcome over another. In the scientific community, where results must be reviewed and duplicated, there is no question bias must be kept to a minimum.

T¬hat's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting research, experiments and, in doing so, improves results. By using a standardized approach in investigations, the person conducting the investigation can feel confident that they will stick to the facts and limit the influence of personal, preconceived notions. Even with such a rigorous methodology in place, some scientists still make mistakes. For example, they can mistake a hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon without performing experiments. Or they can fail to accurately account for errors, such as measurement errors. Or they can ignore data that does not support the hypothesis. This is not turning the scientific method on its head but rather ahearing to its concept.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group