I think you miss-characterized my point. The courts DO need to look ONLY at the reliability of the methodology used as opposed to if they arrived at the "correct pr accurate answer." The inherent assumption is that if a reliable methodology is applied to the available evidence, you will produce a reliable determination.

Science cannot determine if you are "correct" or "accurate" in your determination. This is a widespread miss-understanding of what "science" is and what it can reliably produce. Only that it is the most reliable determination that can be produced with the available evidence. At any point in time, new evidence can be produced that can disprove a valid hypothesis. All the evidence in the world will never prove a valid hypothesis correct, but one piece of evidence can disprove a valid hypothesis. Thus, you can never "prove" a valid hypothesis, you can only disprove a valid hypothesis. As a positive note on this issue, the courts understand and have recognized the appropriate definition of evidence and what "science" can reliably deliver when some in the fire investigation community are ignorant of such concepts and applications.

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com