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 12, 2022 09:39AM
The courts have a better handle on evidence and how to apply the SM than a lot of those in the fire investigation community. The courts have addressed relevancy and reliability long before it was discussed in the FI community when Daubert became a reliability hurdle.
First and foremost, FI must use a reliable methodology. That is, the SM in this context. The FI must use evidence, not the lack of evidence in the application of the SM to a specific set of circumstances. The FI must be able to explain how they reliably applied the SM and the evidence they used in this application. The FI must explain how they arrived at a reliable determination using "science" (i.e., a compilation of reliable knowledge) to demonstrate "what did happen" versus "what could have happened" using inductive and deductive reasoning.
What a judge might subjectively do, beyond limiting or striking the use of an unreliable methodology, should not be forecast to try and account for in your investigation, analysis, or determination. As a professional, you have a responsibility to conduct a reliable investigation and any determination can be supported with evidence. The rest is out of your control. "Winning" and "losing" in the court system is a reality, but one a FI should not try and control. You should be assessed as to the reliability of your determinations, not whether you survived the sometimes unequal justice system.
My direct testimony in court usually involves how to reliably apply the SM to the specific data in a specific incident. This provides a reasonable foundation to explain why my determinations were based on the application of evidence and a reliable methodology. There is ignorance of "science" and what it is able to do with judges and juries. One can change this ignorance by educating the judge and jury on this subject.
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