It's time for me to weigh in with today's metaphysical / philosophical moment: Is probable the best we'll ever get in a historical recreation? While there are some cases that can be narrowed to a seemingly certain cause - unless you were there or have a certified, unaltered, unstaged video / DVD of the event can you ever be certain to the absolute exclusion of all other possibilities? The Court in Daubert said:" Of course, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony must be 'known' to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science" (William Daubert, et al v. Merrell Dow, Inc.; 509 US 579 - 1993)

What I think we need to do is focus on reasonable and probable origin and cause determinations based on the reasonable analysis and evaluation of all available and pertinent data, filtered through the latest, valid scientific findings. With this as a guiding principle, we can come up with practical and reasonably accurate origin and cause determinations.

We cannot wait for certainty; for certainty may never come. And, when I am certain of something, my level of proof may not meet yours, leaving us at a certain disagreement. (Although, I'm sure I'm right.) People have been absolutely certain and absolutely wrong.

Mr. Hebert previously brought up my "Extraterrestrial Thermogenesis" hypothesis (The "Martian Ray Beam Hypothesis"). For the record, I do not believe that it has ever happened, but I cannot be certain. If I were to state that a Martian Ray Beam caused a fire; one would be hard pressed to prove to a certainty that it could never happen because not all information from all possible sources is currently known. Just because there hasn't been any evidence of a phenomenon, doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist. But "Extraterrestrial Thermogenesis" doesn't seem scientific to us because I offer no real, observed or tested basis for my finding. It doesn't seem reasonable. I could provide some pseudo-scientific explanation about the generation of concentrated, point energy transmissions focused at the fire's origin and residual tachyion fields that prove the cause, but it wouldn't pass the "smell" test. It doesn't "smell" right. (For a good examination of this idea, see Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" and his incorporeal, hovering, heatless-fire breathing dragon example)". While the fire may have been caused by a "Martian Ray Beam", it doesn't seem probable that is was, based on the evidence and facts known about a given fire.

So what are we left with? Well, I think (just me thinking) we're left with a standard of reasonableness that allows us to make rational decisions based on examination and interpretation of known facts. I think it allows for something like an "Undetermined Accidental" fire cause. How? Shouldn't we define that as "Undetermined?" Maybe. I believe, "Undetermined" is a continuum. There are some fires for which we have no clue as to the origin or the cause; and we never will (isolated area, no witnesses, total consumption of the structure, etc.) simply because the data no longer exists on which to form a hypothesis or opinion. Then there are others where all of the facts, except the exact micro-level cause of the fire is known. For example, I have a video surveillance system, but it is a little fuzzy. I can account for the security of the building - nobody comes or goes for hours. The video shows a "glow" in an area around the floor level corner of my desk. The resolution is not great, but it is clear that a fire is burning. The fire is confined to my office and the scene examination shows the, in the area of origin, I have a duplex outlet into which I have plugged a power strip and an electric air freshener - both heavily fire damaged. I was also doing some woodwork and left a linseed oil soaked rag in the corner and the fishbowl on my window sill often reflects light into that corner. The cause?? Pick one - or not. Call it accidental because I know that nobody intentionally set the fire, but the exact cause will be fought out in subrogation claims. Purists will say that this is clearly "Undetermined" because the cause cannot be specifically stated - OK - so the cause is Undetermined but classified as Accidental = Undetermined Accidental. This is another example of what I have referred to as "Avato's Conundrum"- identical fact patterns that can result in reasonable and defensible, but opposing, cause determinations. It's what keeps this forum interesting and some people in business.