Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
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 02, 2022 10:43AM
Most scientific research starts with a hypothesis. In drug research they start with what they are attempting to change a substance by adding other substances. Then they formulate a hypothesis that is if this substance is added to the primary substance, then this would be the result. Then they go about testing this hypothesis by adding the secondary substance. The evidence is developed by what are the results from combining the two substances. They will keep the general hypothesis that by adding a substance it will affect the primary substance. Then the change the secondary substance or the amount of the secondary substance during the testing process and note the results from each. Here they are evaluating the data against their original hypothesis.
You are not alone as to formulating a hypothesis or hypotheses when you get the assignment to investigate the incident. I do it sometimes when I am not involved in the investigation but see the incident on the news.
My son-in-law works in the drug research field. I hear him all the time talking about a drug they are working on and how the drug will affect the virous or cancer cell they are working on. They always start with nothing more than a hypothesis as what the interact will be and then they do the testing to validate that hypothesis. It is not uncommon in science to start the scientific process with a hypothesis.
Many would say the methodology you suggest is negative corpus methodology when you said, “I formed the hypothesis that the ignition source could be electricity. I looked for a potential refutational data and found it in the fact that there was no electrical service to the property. I then moved on to form other hypotheses." I would agree this is not a negative corpus. The fact that you eliminated electrical because there was no electrical is factual evidence. The suggestion is you cannot eliminate to get a valid hypothesis by the process of elimination but that is exactly what the scientific method requires.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
You are not alone as to formulating a hypothesis or hypotheses when you get the assignment to investigate the incident. I do it sometimes when I am not involved in the investigation but see the incident on the news.
My son-in-law works in the drug research field. I hear him all the time talking about a drug they are working on and how the drug will affect the virous or cancer cell they are working on. They always start with nothing more than a hypothesis as what the interact will be and then they do the testing to validate that hypothesis. It is not uncommon in science to start the scientific process with a hypothesis.
Many would say the methodology you suggest is negative corpus methodology when you said, “I formed the hypothesis that the ignition source could be electricity. I looked for a potential refutational data and found it in the fact that there was no electrical service to the property. I then moved on to form other hypotheses." I would agree this is not a negative corpus. The fact that you eliminated electrical because there was no electrical is factual evidence. The suggestion is you cannot eliminate to get a valid hypothesis by the process of elimination but that is exactly what the scientific method requires.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.