You still have the same problem. This is you are using a play on word but never saying in your opinion it is correct.

That is find explaining what science can and cannot do. The problem is the final question, and that is as an expert can you say your opinion is correct. There is a difference between a science inquiry and court testimony. A key component in allowing testimony is can that testimony assist the trier of fact in identifying the cause of the fire. If the expert states that he cannot say his conclusion is correct how is the testimony assisting the trier of fact.

You are missing the point. As far as science goes you can have any number of outcomes. When it comes to court it is either you know what caused the fire or not. All you are saying it that your conclusion is reliable. By using the word reliable you are saying it is true. Here you are telling me you cannot say your conclusion based on the scientific method is true.

Your final hypothesis that you say you cannot state is correct, but you say is reliable. Then you are saying that hypothesis is true.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group