John, I will (respectfully, of course) disagree with MIJ and say that I do not think that your post is "insane". These are topics that should be brought up and discussed. I understand the professional issues pointed out by Mr. Kennedy in a previous post regarding a private investigators obligation to a client, however in the rarefied air of these philosophical discussions; isn't it wrong for a private investigator who "knows" that a client is guilty to remain silent (perhaps doing society a disservice?) We have already established (I think) that it is reprehensible for a public investigator to "know" that someone is not guilty, but to allow them to be prosecuted nonetheless.

I also want to address the "Standard of care" issue; while I agree that there should be an adopted set of rules that guide every investigators behavior, and provides a base of validated and accepted knowledge, there will always be a matter of interpretation of data that cannot be addressed in a standard. A standard may tell me that a cigarette can cause the ignition of upholstered furniture, but it won't tell me that the cigarette ignited THIS upholstered chair. The standard may say that an investigator should consider ventilation effects as a potential cause of deeper char or heavier burn, but it won't tell me the degree to which ventilation affected MY scene. A "standard" is not a panacea and does not guarantee correctness. Some have argued that the medical profession has a standard of care and you wouldn't want your brain sliced by someone who didn't believe in the standard of care. Good argument (any surgery on my brain would be microsurgery.) However, I want a surgeon who can adapt the standard to my particular case and, even if the "standard of care” says that a particular tumor is fatal, does what is best for me in my particular case. Science is based on a willingness to look outside of the standards and norms of its own profession. The history of science is full of examples of people saying that they did not accept the norm or standard and set out to change it. Flat earth was the standard. Newtonian physics was the standard. Phlogiston was a standard. All were accepted at one time and all were useful in driving knowledge forward.

Interpretation of data is also key in your question regarding "knowing" of someone’s guilt or innocence. I may truly believe that you truly believe that your position is right on a particular case. I may be able to show that your interpretation of the data is incorrect in this particular case, but I can still believe that you honestly interpreted the data without a nefarious intent. Just because an investigator "got it wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that they deliberately intended to harm another person or society.

Anomalous data is another topic for discussion. One odd piece of data may make or break the correct analysis of a particular scene. Was it collected properly? What is its significance? Is it significant or epiphenomenal? DNA is very prone to misinterpretation (by both sides.) Just because DNA in a murder victim doesn't match the suspect doesn't mean he didn't kill her (only that he didn't leave the DNA sample collected.) Just because my DNA is at the scene doesn't necessarily mean that I committed the crime.

I think any opportunity for the discussion of philosophical issues in fire investigation should be welcomed. I think these issues are now of more concern to the field than "mechanical" issues.

Steve