im hit the nail on the head. I am in no way saying NFPA 921 is all bad. I do however think that it brings up a lot of confusion to the average reader by the use of fancy terms. It was at least 5 years before I thought I somewhat understood what the scientific method was, & to this day I still don't think I've grasp it totally. As I understand it, as you have said time & again, a theory, thought or idea can NEVER BE PROVEN AS FACT under the scientific method. If this is true then I rest my case. I can never testify to the fact that my theory is 100% accurate rather I would have to say it's the most likely. To me this is not beond a reasonable doubt but rather that it is the best, that may change if more evidence is brought forward. It is also a good out to ask what if, what if, what if.

You point out that NFPA 921 explains the use of the scientific method but to me it causes more confusion than give me the fundamental knowledge of how to reliably apply it. As Jim has pointed out more than once, the document is full of inaccuracies. I think it is time that the committee take a long look at it to see if it is totally accurate & if not, go back to the drawing board & create a document that is so, and write it so it's understandable to the average reader.