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: July 01, 2022 08:44AM
If I am understanding what you are saying is that data’s relationship to evidence is based on the context of the purpose it is being viewed. There is a transition period between data and when it becomes evidence. I tend to look at the alarm as evidence from the beginning because I would say all my investigations revolve around more than the origin and cause. The investigation into the question was there an alarm present and did it activate may or may not have anything to do with the origin and cause. The occasion may develop where it becomes evidence in the origin and cause investigation. Basically, I am running parallel investigations which may or may not combine at appoint in time. That is why I consider most data as evidence. This is true with not only an alarm but maybe with the building construction.
What you are saying is that all data must be considered. As the investigation proceeds that date may or may not evolve into evidence that can be used in the evaluation of one or more hypotheses.
I think the terminology being used, “invalid” and “unsupported” relates to the person’s education in the use of these terms. In the dictionary the word invalid is defined as being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law. The example they give is “an invalid assumption”. Unsupported is defined as being not verified or unsubstantiated. I must agree of the two, unsupported better relates to what we are trying to say. Very good point.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group