I think the article goes beyond those in medicine that went to some type of university or school for special training. Is everyone practicing medicine required to have the same education and skill level prior to practicing? I do not understand the belief in the stigma that our profession assigns to art. I personally do not see how we can call fire investigation pure science when in fact it depends on individual interpretations and not scientific reproduce facts.

The NFPA states definitions for a document, that is not defined in the document should come from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary. I wonder how many on the committee went to the dictionary to learn the definition of the word before it was removed from the document. The first definition is, “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation.” When applying the scientific method does one not use their experience, study and observation? The second definition is, “an occupation requiring knowledge or skill.” Is fire investigation not a occupation that requires knowledge or skill?

I believe this is what the article is attempting to communicate.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group