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:
dcarpenter (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2022 09:03AM
"By saying the most reliable are you saying the one that based on the evidence is most likely to be correct or true?"
You are providing the most reliable determination based on the available evidence in a specific incident. One could generally characterize the product of the application of the SM as "most likely to be correct or true." Science is the compilation of reliable knowledge. The SM, as a reliable methodology, can produce "science."
"Can these conditions be met as to a person’s conclusion without one say they followed the scientific method outlined in 921?"
921 recommends the use of the SM as the reliable methodology for rendering reliable determinations. It is well accepted in the scientific community. If you deviate from this recommendation, you would need to provide the basis for the use of an alternative reliable methodology.
"What we are giving the court is the most reliable answer possible. That is the way it should be expressed. If we say to them that what we are giving them is the most reliable answer possible based on known data, then we are defeating our position."
How is one defeating their position based on your statement?
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