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:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: May 11, 2022 08:17AM
The big question are you talking about scientific research or what is allowed in the law.
“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 do not agree with this statement. Where this may be a good conclusion for science, I cannot see it being sufficient for any court. If you tell a judge during a daubert hearing that there is more than one valid hypothesis, even though there is one that is more consistent than the others, I would question him letting you testify. There is a difference as to what is acceptable in science and what is acceptable in court.
I am not saying to disprove the hypothesis with anything but evidence. I agree if there is no evidence to disprove the hypothesis that hypothesis remains valid. If a hypothesis is probable or just possible is based on how one can convince the person that will make the final decision. You may feel that way as an individual but others looking at the same information may not see it the same way. Here again, there is a difference as to what may be accepted by science as to what is accepted by the law.
Do you really believe that a judge would let to testify to a hypothesis being the correct one over others that you also say is valid? My experience is that the judge would not let you testify. What you say may be true as to scientific research but as to the law it is at best questionable.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group