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: 921, the nature of "Science" and sound hypotheses
Posted by: ssklar (IP Logged)
Date: October 20, 2006 10:28AM
Steve
You touch on a very important point, and one that I think is a major problem in the field of fire investigation; science. In my pracitce, I see investiagors relying on 'rules of thumb". Their knowledge and understanding of physics, chemsitry , and fire dynamics is usually non existent or at best limited. The extent of these investigators knowledge is typically limited to "fire burns up and out".
921 and other scientific publications contain accpted scientific research and knowledge that should be used to form hypothesis. To me, when someone says that they followed 921 it means they used the scientific method properly to reach their hypothesis, and the hypothesis reached is scientifically valid, amont other things.
If an investigator fails to use the scientific method properly, and forms an hypothesis based on bad science, then documents like 921 and others should be used to demonstrate that the opinion is not the product of a reliable method, and is unsuporrted by science. Because 921 in particlular represents the consensus of those in the fire investigation community,it should carry a lot of weight when used to demonstrate that an hypotheis is not valid
You touch on a very important point, and one that I think is a major problem in the field of fire investigation; science. In my pracitce, I see investiagors relying on 'rules of thumb". Their knowledge and understanding of physics, chemsitry , and fire dynamics is usually non existent or at best limited. The extent of these investigators knowledge is typically limited to "fire burns up and out".
921 and other scientific publications contain accpted scientific research and knowledge that should be used to form hypothesis. To me, when someone says that they followed 921 it means they used the scientific method properly to reach their hypothesis, and the hypothesis reached is scientifically valid, amont other things.
If an investigator fails to use the scientific method properly, and forms an hypothesis based on bad science, then documents like 921 and others should be used to demonstrate that the opinion is not the product of a reliable method, and is unsuporrted by science. Because 921 in particlular represents the consensus of those in the fire investigation community,it should carry a lot of weight when used to demonstrate that an hypotheis is not valid
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.