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: Cause of the Fire
Posted by:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: July 12, 2006 08:51PM
Denny
It is not me that is saying what you quoted, this comes from 921. When the document addresses the necessity of proving the intent need to be determined or proven to an acceptable level of certainty, the document directs you to the section dealing with opinions. The document has only two levels of certainty. One is probable and the other possible. The quote of the paragraph you cited is the wording from the highest level, probable. The logical progression, based on 921, is the proof of the intent need to meet one of the levels of certainty. The highest level of certainty that can be found in the section that is referenced is what was stated in my post.
As I have told others, I do not believe this is the committee’s intent but that is my personal opinion only. I would like to see the level equal to what is needed for determining the origin. Presently 921 states, “It is important that the determination of a single point of origin not be made unless the evidence is conclusive.”
As to the fact that belief is not an element of any conclusion resulting from logical reasoning I would appreciate you considering the following. Would you agree there are three methods for logical reasoning? They are deduction, induction, and abduction. Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid conclusions from a given set of premises. From a strictly logical point of view it is a closed system, although it is well known that beliefs about the conclusion of an argument influence people’s validity judgments. By validity judgment I am speaking of judgments containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived. This is from a study conducted at the Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, Queens Square, London. I am not saying your statement is wrong, I believe there is more to the idea of how person’s beliefs can effect their reasoning process and the conclusions reached.