John:

Maybe this needs to be looked at in a different context. What as a profession are we attempting to accomplish in the development of a specific description of the different levels of confidence to attribute to the belief in our opinion. We are attempting to communicate a specific thought to others as to how strong we feel that the conclusion reached is the correct conclusion. In the beginning pre-existing terminology, with their definitions, were injected into the document. I am not saying this was a correct method of developing this topic, but as time for the document to come out of committee was close, this was thought to be the best way to express this idea.

I did not know the committee issued a TIA on the subject, and this may be part of the problem with the process. Those who purchase the document after the TIA has been issued have that document in with the document, but those purchased before do not get this update in the mail.

The words used to describe a level of confidence are not in themselves a legal term, but through the definition given to those words in 921there is some legal reference. There are many other terms used such as what you used earlier, “a degree of scientific certainty”. The problem as I see it is to get the profession to agree of a set of terms the accurately illustrate the thought we are attempting to convey to others. Here is where another problem comes to play. Not only do these terms need to be understood within our profession but also to those that we interface with during the process. This is where I feel we are lacking.

The purpose of this discussion was to learn how others felt about this subject and what their ideas were so that a suggestion could be made to the committee. From what others have commented, I realize that this is very complex subject and needs a lot more input. I wish I had the words that everyone would agree with but I know I do not, but I am trying. By the way, I did submit a suggestion to clarify that the level of certainty, as it is presently in the document, represents the level of certainty for the classification and not necessarily the cause, so I am part of the process in attempting to clarify areas of misunderstanding.

My problem is maybe this information does not even need to be in the document at this time since there seem to be a lack of general understanding as to the use of the terms. The committee itself has acknowledged there is a problem with the wording being used but has seem to put off taking action. To me, if there is a known problem, the committee should remove this from the document until action can be taken to correct the problem.

I did make a suggestion for a starter to accept Pat’s recommendation as written and another suggestion to similar to Pat’s with some minor changes.