Fire Investigations and the Scientific Method

I’ll quickly explain these seven steps or processes:

• First, “Recognize the Need” gives reference to the fact that a problem exists, namely, a fire has occurred, and that there is a need to figure out how that fire started. The need to know why and how the fire started is based in the desire to prevent that event from happening again and potentially save lives. This charge to figure out how the fire started is typically given to fire investigators through interested parties (insurance adjusters, attorneys, etc.).
• Second, “Define the Problem” involves the scientist-investigator initiating an investigation into the matter. In other words, how can this problem, the fire at hand, be solved? The answer is almost always reached through conducting a thorough scientific investigation.
• Next, “Collect Data” involves the gathering of information. This is often completed through observation, experimentation, or other empirical methods. The collected data is empirical in nature and can be verified through many means including independent testing or through photographic evidence.
• “Analyze the Data” involves a thorough review of all the collected data. This step is key and benefits from a well-educated, trained, and experienced scientist-investigator. Simply put, the analysis is only as good as the scientist doing the analysis. If an investigator lacks understanding or expertise in an area, a significant piece of evidence may go unnoticed. This may, and often does, result in an erroneous final opinion.
• “Develop Hypotheses” involves generating not just one, but often several potential scenarios as to the origin and cause of a fire. In fact, I encourage generating a number of plausible scenarios, as I have found this helps prevent “pet” hypotheses that we coddle and protect from careful examination. Under most circumstances there are often a number of plausible origins and causes that a scientist-investigator must either rule out or investigate further. 
• “Test the Hypotheses” involves rigorous examination, either through physical testing or “thought experiments.” Often, critically thinking through a scenario can quickly rule out or in a hypothesis. Nine-twenty-one says it best, “The investigator does not have a valid or reliable conclusion unless the hypothesis can stand the test of careful and serious challenge.”[7]  Does it make sense? Does it follow the laws of physics? What else could explain this? Is it even possible, if not probable? These are the types of questions we must ask ourselves during this process.
• Re-collect, Re-analyze, Re-develop Hypotheses. Here, the scientist-investigator may need to revisit some of the above steps if a hypothesis fails to stand the test of scrutiny. The scientist-investigator may need to collect additional data, or analyze the collected data further, or differently. The scientist may need to develop a completely new hypothesis to include newly discovered facts. This process can be repeated as many times and as often as needed until a valid hypothesis can be found. Sometimes, the wise scientist-investigator may need to seek additional expertise.
• “Select the Final Hypothesis” is the final step. It requires a robust understanding of the facts of the case. This step cannot be attempted until the scientist knows everything there is to know about the fire and the often convoluted facts surrounding it. The scientist-investigator’s final hypothesis is the basis for the formulation of his or her final expert opinion(s). Note, there may be times when other hypotheses seem to fit the facts equally as well as the scenario the scientist-investigator has selected. If that is the case, the wise scientist-investigator must admit that fact and be willing and able to scientifically support his or her selected hypothesis and expert opinion(s) as the most probable scenario. The scientist-investigator must be able to support and defend a “more likely than not” scenario. This is where education, training and experience play an immense role.

Final Note

If your investigator has not followed the scientific method in their investigation into the fire they are tasked with, they must be able to support their chosen methodology and why they preferred to follow it instead – not an easy task. At Ponderosa Associates, we’ve found that the safest and most robust methodology is to follow what Sir Francis Bacon established over 400 years ago – the Scientific Method.  At Ponderosa Associates, we couple our skills, knowledge, experience, and training with the scientific method to produce a solid product for our clients. This proven method of trial and error has allowed scientists, physicists, and engineers to put a man on the moon, develop cures for maladies that a hundred years ago would prove fatal, develop computers that process data at lightning speed, and provide cellular telephones that allow communication to anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds. This method can also provide answers to why and how a fire started with a level of confidence otherwise unseen in history. 

Happy investigating to all!
-J. Cord Guthrie, MFS, CFEI, CVFI