Jim,

First, let me say that this forum is not the beast place to have this type of dialogue with the "point" "counterpoint" as the discussions are necessarily cut short due to time and space limitations. Inevitably, someone will take these "snipets" out of context and we'll see them again!!

I only reluctantly posted in this discussion because I was involved in many of the discussions that lead to the language in the text. Again, I can only give you my understanding and my opinion regarding the issue.

Relative to my discussion on a "belief." A belief is an unsupported "opinion". It is not a "conclusion." Belief's, instinct, intuition, and gut feelings are all unacceptable for supporting any conclusion. They are "mere opinion" in logical reasoning. They certainly are not a basis for supporting any hypothesis.

As to the issue of "possible" and "probable" levels of certainty with regard to classifying a fire cause. I would offer the following. If a conclusion regarding a cause is only supported to a "possibilty", that is an insufficient level of certainty to classify the cause anything other than unknown. The support must be to a probabilty. Only when a conclusino is "probable" can a cause be classfied as accidental, incendiary or natural.

Regarding the intent of a persons actions and the ability ot classify a fire cause, he language in all classification sections is essentially the same (Accidental - 19.2.1.1, Incendiary 19.2.1.3 and Undetermined - 19.2.1.4):

Accidental & Incendiary:

"When the intent of a persons actions cannot be determined or proven to an acceptable level of certainty, the correct classificaiotn is undetermined."

Undetermined:

"Whenever the cause cannot be proven to an acceptable level of certainty, the proper classification is undetermined."

When 921 is stating an "acceptable level of certainty" it is talking about "probable" as THE acceptable level. It is not one of the two. If the conclusion is only "possible", the cause can only be appropriately classified "undetermined."

Denny