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: Acceptable Level of Certainty
Posted by: Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 08, 2007 08:10PM
I agree, “certain” may not be the correct word to use in describing a level. This is one reason I believe assigning a percentage to a word is no a good idea. If you leave it the way you said it, “to be without doubt” I have no problem with that wording. If I have disproved all other hypothesis except one then I am certain on my conclusion based on all facts use in the evaluation or testing of that hypothesis. Remember the level of certainty or confidence is my opinion as to the weight I am placing on my conclusion being correct.
Does anyone not feel the conclusion they arrive at is not correct without doubt in their mine? I just am one of those that believe you either know the cause or you do not. If you need to say that your call only has slightly more than a 50% chance of being correct, I am not sure you should be making a call. To me this classification system and level of certainty demeans our profession. We want to say our profession is based on science but the method used in validating our finds is one that allows us to determine the cause of a fire with only a chance of 50% of this opinion being correct. Can you see a finger print expert, a DNA expert, or a ballistics expert saying we have a match and I give my opinion a level of certainty of being 50% correct? How would the judge or jury accept this testimony?
Does anyone not feel the conclusion they arrive at is not correct without doubt in their mine? I just am one of those that believe you either know the cause or you do not. If you need to say that your call only has slightly more than a 50% chance of being correct, I am not sure you should be making a call. To me this classification system and level of certainty demeans our profession. We want to say our profession is based on science but the method used in validating our finds is one that allows us to determine the cause of a fire with only a chance of 50% of this opinion being correct. Can you see a finger print expert, a DNA expert, or a ballistics expert saying we have a match and I give my opinion a level of certainty of being 50% correct? How would the judge or jury accept this testimony?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.