The last decade and a half have revealed plenty of examples of the misapplication and / or misunderstanding of the "Daubert criteria" (in my opinion anyway). "General acceptance" and "error rate" are the biggest problems. John is correct in that error rate does not really apply, or at least translate well, to fire investigations. I also agree with John regarding "probable". When I say that something is the probable cause of the fire, I mean that, based on my analysis of the available data, it is my opinion that this is how the fire started. Could there have been a minute chance that something else caused the fire (extraterrestrial thermogenesis?)? Perhaps, but in this case, I feel the evidence best supports this as the cause. This is a business heavily dependent on opinions and opinions are like ... ubiquitous (they're everywhere.) What we need is for the opinions to be based on careful and critical analysis of data that is filtered through current, valid knowledge of the scientific underpinnings of the fire phenomenon.
I also agree that the old mythology is being replaced by new misconceptions and false beliefs. These, however, are at least based on more valid and tested concepts, although they are misapplied without regard to certain test parameters and limitations. This misapplication can occur on both sides of any contested issue. There are some Ph.D. educated investigators who get it just as wrong as the high school drop-out. I am reminded of an anecdotal report of a defense expert who testified that the fire could not have occurred the way it was presented because the "numbers" didn't work - turns out that he was using English units instead of SI for a formula that was derived using SI.


"A new scientific truth does not establish itself by its enemies being convinced and expressing their change of opinion, but rather by its enemies gradually dying out and the younger generation being taught the truth from the beginning." - Max Planck