The Scientific Method is a thought process applied to almost every situation where an answer to a problem is needed. It is a method of inquiry. Note, nothing in this definition, or any other refers, to anybody in a white lab coat.

Remember, as Mr. Mifsud tells us (see The Scientific Method,below), the Latin word scientia translates to the English word knowledge.

The Scientific Method operates under that broad definition of scientia: knowledge. The Scientific Method is a means to seek knowledge about the world around us. If the science in The Scientific Method throws you and you can’t get the guys in white lab coats out of your head, think of it as "The Knowledge Method", or even just "The Method". Don’t get stuck on the name.

Now stop. We’ve talked about The Scientific Method in the most general terms. Let’s take it a step further. The Scientific Method is a process in which: 1. a problem is identified; 2. relevant information is gathered from all available sources; 3. a hypothesis is formulated using only the information gathered; 4. the hypothesis is put to the test; and 5. once the hypothesis has passed every test, it becomes a theory. 1 2 3 5

At this point, the guys with the white labs coats are still missing. And we need an example.

We Use The Scientific Method Everyday.

Rosie used The Scientific Method to solve her problem. Rosie didn’t think "This is so great! I get to use The Scientific Method to fix my computer. I am the luckiest, smartest girl in the world." She did it by force of habit, and so do you.

Step 1 - The first step in The Scientific Method is for you to identify the problem. Ask yourself questions. What part of the world around me do I need to understand better? What am I trying to find? What problem do I need to solve? Why did that happen? How does it work?

For Rosie, the problem was no internet access. Neat and obvious problem. Albert Einstein needed to understand the nature of matter, energy, space and time. Big and mind boggling problem. The process is always the same no matter the size, importance or subject of the question.5

Fire Investigators are lucky. The problem for you is the same time after time. What happened in this fire or explosion? We need to understand the "how and why" to prevent similar incidents and ultimately save lives and property.2

Problem identified. Now what? Take it a step further by asking another question. How do I solve this problem? Rosie knew to solve her problem she needed to make a thorough examination of her computer and collect information. She also at this time chose the methods she would use to collect the data. Rosie had a plan and was ready to go.

Once again, as a fire investigator, you’re lucky. Your problem is always solved by a complete origin and cause investigation. All that’s left for you to do is tailor your plan of attack to fit the exact nature of the incident, follow the guidelines in NFPA 921, and start collecting data.

So far following The Scientific Method has been like second nature.

The next three steps of The Scientific Method form a cycle that is repeated until the answer to the problem is found.

Step 2 - Relevant information is gathered from all available sources. Rosie collected data that would help her answer the question. She made direct observations of the physical state of the computer, listened to the modem, and interviewed her co-worker.

Your data is collected in exactly the same manner. You use direct examination of the incident scene, interview witnesses, review the reports, photographs, and investigations of other involved parties, and conduct tests when appropriate. Often one line of inquiry leads to another unexpected source of information.2

The data you collect is called Empirical Data. Empirical Data are facts and information collected by direct observation or experience during your investigation. Hunches, speculation and psychic visions have no place here. We carry this a step further in that Empirical Data must be verifiable.2 You have to be able to show someone else your facts by having pictures, samples, actual evidence remains, etc... A good fire investigator, like yourself does this everyday. You know that you can’t say a coffeemaker was in the area of origin if there isn’t a picture of it after the fire, or at the very least corroborating witness statements and maybe a picture of it from before the fire. Because we know lawyers and experts from the coffeemaker company are going to ask you to prove it.

Step 3 - A hypothesis is formulated using only the information gathered. Once enough information is gathered, it is reviewed as a whole and a hypothesis is formed. A hypothesis is a statement that provides an answer to the problem based solely on the data collected. NFPA 921 divides this into two steps: analyze the data (a) and formulate the hypothesis (b).2 Figure 1 compares our simple version of The Scientific Method to the version that appears in NFPA 921.

Step 3a -This is the point where you begin to use your knowledge, training and experience. You take everything you know about fire investigation, fire science, human behavior; all the seminars and courses you’ve taken over the years, and all the books that you’ve read to start giving weight to the data. As you ponder the different pieces you’ve collected a picture of what may have happened comes to mind, your hypothesis. This is inductive reasoning. It is a "bottom up process". Taking small pieces (observations), looking for patterns, and formulating a hypothesis in order to determine the larger truth.4 (If you want a further explanation of deductive and inductive reasoning we’ve provided links to useful sites at www.nafi.org.)

A very simple example of this might be doing a jigsaw puzzle without a picture. All the pieces carry the same weight, until you find the ones that fit together.

Step 3b - Rosie reviews the information she gathered to develop a hypothesis. Remember, a hypothesis is a possible answer to your question.

Her first hypothesis is: The damaged cord is the reason I cannot connect to the internet.

Note to the wise: Always choose the most simple and most likely hypothesis. It is possible that a family of small aliens moved into Rosie’s computer and that’s why it will not connect. It is, however, not likely. It’s pretty funny and bound to make her coworkers laugh at her but not probable. If she finds a tiny space ship at the base of her computer the next morning Rosie is free to change her hypothesis. This principle, that there are an infinite number of possible solutions to a problem, but that the most probable and simplest explanation should be considered first until some new information complicates the situation, is called Occam’s Razor.3

Figure 1

Step 4 - The hypothesis is put to the test. Don’t start getting upset over the guys in the white lab coats again. Testing the hypothesis does not have to contain actual laboratory tests.2 Here test means scrutiny. You use deductive reasoning to come up with a conclusion. Deductive reasoning is a "top down" approach, taking a hypothesis and collecting observations to support it. It is the opposite of the inductive reasoning we discussed earlier.

Play devil’s advocate with you hypothesis. Ask yourself these kinds of questions:

Bounce your ideas off another investigator you trust, call in a specialist.

We cannot ignore the white lab coat guys forever. There are instances where laboratory or physical tests are required. Rosie needed to test her faulty cord hypothesis by exchanging it for one that was known to work and retesting the system.

Laboratory testing can be essential to a fire investigation when the physical or chemical properties of a material are in dispute. Can you recreate the scenario or part of it? Any time you can reasonably perform a test to supplement the body of data and support your findings, you should. Does that mean that every time you investigate a fire in a split level colonial you will need to burn down houses until recreate the fire exactly? No, but you may want to send samples to a lab in a suspected arson or run computer fire models to try confirming your hypothesis.

The results (data) of your testing, either mental or from experiments, are compared to your hypothesis. If your hypothesis holds water it becomes a theory. If it doesn’t, add testing results to your pool of data and the cycle begins again.

Once your hypothesis has withstood rigorous testing, you are ready to put forth your theory. A theory is nothing more than a well-proven hypothesis. Rosie’s second hypothesis, the broken wall outlet, passed a series of tests. It became a theory.

Your theory will be the final hypothesis, after testing which locates and explains the origin and cause of the fire incident you are investigating.

Now here’s another wrinkle, you can fail to come up with a theory. You may be unable to collect enough facts to formulate hypothesis. Or, after many attempts, you may not be able to find a hypothesis, which can be successfully tested.2 In these cases the cause of the fire must be listed as undetermined. The old school fire investigator would now be tempted to hazard a random guess, fall back on an old wive’s tale, or call in that psychic. But you, The Scientific Method-savvy fire investigator, will stick to your guns, do the right thing, and call it undetermined.