Where the level of certainty reflects the person’s belief that the conclusion and not the conclusion itself, does not this belief relate directly to the accuracy of the opinion itself. Why should not the person be required to believe the conclusion reaches a level of certainty in his or her mine beyond any other reasonable hypothesis for it to be valid?

Think of this as not a fire investigator or engineer but as a lay person hearing the comment that you believe you opinion to be correct is more probable than not or you believe you opinion chances of being correct is above 51%. Would that not indicate to the person there is the possibility of a significant error rate in your conclusion? I have heard from numerous persons that we want others to think of this profession as they do about engineers and other similar professions, but what do we give them to work with.

When we determine the cause of a fire this decision could have a wide range of affect on the lives of others. Would we not want any decision that affects our life and family to meet a level of beyond any other reasonable hypothesis as a minimum? What is wrong in meeting this type standard over more probable than not. I know there are those that say the more probable to not is the standard in our court system, but as we all know this is only for civil litigation. I hope we are not getting criminal convictions on that level of certainty. I would like to believe that every individual in this profession would say that the conclusion they reached was based on all the facts available and they believed this was the only correct conclusion. I do understand the findings might not be agreed with by all, but this does not mean the person does not believe in the findings. Would not a level such as, beyond any other reasonable hypothesis, be a better level for all determinations, and if you can not meet that level then it is undetermined?