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: 921 & arson
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2022 08:04AM
There goes my communication problems again.
What I am trying to say is the process to prove a hypothesis to be more than likely correct is the falsification process. The ability to disprove all hypotheses but one to be false is the proof of that one hypothesis being correct based on the testing process and knowledge of the person conducting the testing. This is not to say that the hypothesis is correct or that additional information from others my prove it to be false. If no others or additional information disproves the hypothesis on is to assume it is correct. Is that not what we are representing to the court. What I was saying is that a good or correct scientific hypothesis is one that cannot be proven false.
We could say that is we cannot disprove the hypothesis the the correctness of that hypothesis is beyond what science can offer.
By saying one can only prove a hypothesis to be false and never be able to say it is correct is to say in our profession we can never provide a correct answer as to the cause of a fire to the court. If we cannot do this simple task, why are we a profession? What good are we?
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group