Steve:

After all this discussion I was sitting here questioning myself as to not only the level of confidence I have that my opinion is correct but also the level of confidence in the determination of what caused the fire. Wow, does this sound confusing. I ask myself, have I ever been asked as to what degree of certainty I believed my conclusion to be correct. Is there a term used that I must meet in order to testify? Are we getting too hung up on labels and not on the substance?
You can ask Pat, I know I am 100% correct in my opinions or I would not give it, I just do not know why I can not get Pat to agree. Any type of labeling as to the correctness of an opinion seems to me to be a futile exercise. I like to pay more attention to the methodology used to reach the conclusion, such as an examination of all available data. This is the meat of our profession. What I see with the labeling is each side wants a method of labeling that will support their side in litigation. Why don’t we quit trying to impress each other with labels and put more of this effort into the methods that can be used to evaluate, develop and test a hypothesis.

From some of the postings, it looks like we have a long way to go to get uniform agreement on this subject.