J L Mazerat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I glade to see the court is using common since. It
> is my belief that the lack of common since is
> making 921 irrelevant in some areas. It does not
> make common since. If one follows what is
> represented as the scientific method, they are
> using the POE from the first step. When collecting
> the data, they are looking at all that is present
> and eliminating some of the data through the POE
> as to what is relevant and what is not. If one
> says they only develop one hypothesis after
> analyzing the data collected, I would say that
> person has a bias toward that one hypothesis. When
> choosing an origin, they are eliminating other
> areas based on their education, knowledge, and
> experience. The same is true when it comes to the
> first fuel ignited and the heat source. When there
> are multiple hypotheses, the testing process is
> used to eliminate each. That is the POS of
> elimination.

Eliminating some of the data?

You only formulate valid hypotheses with evidence. If the available data does not provide evidence to formulate any hypothesis, you are not required to formulate hypotheses. You are required to consider hypotheses based on your experience, education and training. You can only formulate valid hypotheses with evidence. The SM requires you to consider alternative hypotheses, but you are not required to formulate alternative hypotheses unless there is evidence to support such.

>
> I have never understood why the committee and
> other are so against the logical use in the
> process of elimination. I understand when it came
> to incendiary fires where there is no evidence of
> support for the finding, but when there is
> supporting evidence that supporting evidence is
> used in the testing of the hypothesis process.
> This allows the person to eliminate some, if not
> all the hypotheses.

It is about reliability. The POE is only a reliable methodology under the SM for certain conditions.It can not be reliably applied to FI.

>
> The other thing I love is when a person state
> there is no evidence that allows the formulation
> of a valid hypothesis and there by the cause is
> undetermined. This is a personal opinion only.
> They say it in a way to suggest that if because
> they did not have sufficient evidence that it does
> not exist. What they do not understand is that the
> evidence they believe is insufficient is
> sufficient for others to make the determination.
> The other person may have additional evidence that
> the person making the statement did not consider.

Based on the available evidence. Yes, for a number of reasons, not all data and evidence is available to everyone.

>
>
> I have taken to inquiring of those working in
> other professions that use the scientific method
> as to their thoughts about the use of the POE in
> their profession. I have yet to find one that does
> not say the POE is not part of the methodology in
> using the scientific method. This makes me wonder
> why fire investigation is different than all these
> other professions. Are we that special?

Consensus is not a requirement of the application of the SM. The SM can create consensus, but it is not a required element.

The FI community may be special, if there is wholesale ignorance of how to reliably apply the SM to a specific set of data to reach reliable determinations.

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