Since so much of this discussion has involved around the scientific method I though the discussion should expand into that area of understanding. As a fire investigator you can expect that you will need to explain this methodology and how it relates to your investigation. It is important that you do not get bogged down in semantics. It is up to you as the person rendering the conclusion to be able to explain how your investigation followed an accepted methodology that can be related to the scientific method. Where some attempt to make the scientific method a sword to be used against you, do not be intimidated. It is a very simple methodology that is taught in sixth grade. It is there to help you with your investigation.

If you purport to use 921 in your investigation without limitation, be ready to get questioned on all aspects of 921. If you purport that you have used the methodology (the scientific method) found in 921, that may limit your exposure to questioning as to what is contained in the document. The courts are more concerned as to your methodology rather that everything contained in 921.

What we have come to know is the scientific method is what we see in 921. How many understand that the steps shown in 921 are not the only sequence of steps that have been accepted in the scientific community when it comes to applying the scientific method. The steps found in 921 are procedures one is expected to follow to comply with the scientific method. What must be acknowledged is that these steps can change and still be applicable to the scientific method. The ultimate goal is what is important. Where one may find these steps or procedures vary from one field to another to another, the underlying process is frequently the same. Some say there are seven steps to the scientific whereas others may say there are five. When evaluating the two one needs to compare them to see if the steps called for cover the main points of the scientific method. I have seen investigator leave out the first two steps shown in 921 but follow the remaining steps.

One process being used and being identified as the scientific method states the process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. Another accepted set of steps is found in what is referred to as the Scientific Method for Data Collection. This calls for a six-step process. These are to ask a question, preform a background research, construct a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the results and develop a conclusion, and report the results. There is even on methodology that list eight-steps. As one can see the steps here or different than what is found in 921 but all are considered acceptable methodology for complying with the scientific method. What you use is up to you but be able to show where your methodology has been accepted.

As you could see by the discussion above there are differences of opinions relating to specifics as to how the process evolves. In your explanations do not get caught up technical issues as to what goes into each step, such as the method of evaluating, subjective or not subjective. Here it comes into personal opinions as to how the process evolves.

All I was trying to get across to the reader of the postings was that the conclusions reached using the scientific method were not necessarily absolutely accurate. There is always some level of certainty involved with any conclusion reached. An understanding of that level of certainty is very important when given your opinion. It is not a direct attack on you as a person if others reviewing the same data reach a different conclusion. We do not all think alike and thereby do not always analyze information in the same way. This difference in the analyzation process leads to different opinions. There is nothing wrong with that taking place. The analyzation process one uses over another may relate to the person’s education, and experience on that specific subject.

Your report serves two purposes. Your report is a method of communicating to others your findings along with the methodology you used to reach your conclusions. The second is your report or your notes that will assist you in remembering the process you used when conducting your investigation as well as the facts you learned as the result of your investigation. Here I would suggest you go to following and read the report (https://doi.org/10.29325/OSAC.TG.0005). The more knowledge you have as to the reason behind why you are being asked to follow a methodology, such as the one found in 921, the better you can formulate your response to any questions concerning your methodology.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group