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: Scientific Method
Posted by:
dcarpenter (IP Logged)
Date: May 10, 2022 03:44PM
One could argue that if a number of valid hypotheses cannot be disproved and one is found to be uniquely consistent with the available evidence, then the other valid hypotheses are eliminated.
I disagree given that you can only disprove a hypothesis with evidence. Thus, if there is no evidence that disproves the hypothesis, it still remains a valid hypothesis. As previously discussed, the hypothesis that is uniquely consistent with the available evidence is "probably." The remaining valid hypotheses that are not uniquely consistent are considered "possible."
A hypothesis that is disproved, did not happen under the specific circumstances (ignition of a high flashpoint liquid at room temperature). Thus, it is not "probable" or "possible." "Possible" are the remaining valid hypotheses that can happen under the right circumstances, but not all of the circumstances in the specific case. At any time, new evidence that disproves the hypothesis that is uniquely consistent with the available evidence can be produced. Then, using an iterative process, you can test the remaining valid hypotheses against the new evidence that were "possible" to see if anyone of them is uniquely consistent with the available evidence (i.e., "probable").
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