Let me say that I totally agree with you when it comes to science and the falsification of hypotheses. From a scientific standpoint that is the goal of any research. I am conducting currently research for an international company addressing the myths as to the failure of the glass bulbs and sprinkler heads. My research will allow through test of different hypothesis to say I was unable to replicate a failure due to these conditions. I can never say that this type of failure does not occur or will never occur under these conditions. That is science.

The legal aspect is something different. Here I am to develop specific facts about the cause of the fire. These facts are then presented as a representation of what took place. It is up to the person(s) to whom the fact was presented to reach the final conclusion if the facts as presented meet their level of certainty for them to agree what took place.

I am with you as to the need for there to be a level of certainty for an opinion in the explanation. One can say how this level of certainty was determined as part of the explanation. The level of certainty modifies the conclusion process. In this case, it enhances the quality of the process. You are telling the person(s) to whom you are communicating that the process used was not pulling a conclusion out of thin air but is based on science. I do not believe a degree of scientific certainty does any hard, when in fact it is telling others that science was used as part of the process to reach the conclusion.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group