DM or Master Diver????

[TheRedHead]

Sorry, I've grown so used to working in threaded mode where such things are a dash clearer.

I usually go back and look for a likely reference, but at the rate pages are loading...:shakehead

 

[Daylonious]

Gee.. and I *JUST* got this today too... you buncha party poopers..

Laugh all ya want, *I* thought it was kinda cool...

D.

 

[Thalassamania]

You’re right, memory is the first thing to go (and I've forgotten the second). What I meant to say (not having taken a philosophy class since 1972and having to go back to my text) was:

If the moon is made of cheese, then pigs can fly or game theory is fun. Pigs cannot fly. Game theory is fun. Therefore, the moon is not made of cheese

Let p denote the statement “the moon is made of cheese,” q denote the statement “pigs can fly,” and r denote the statement “game theory is fun.”

(a) p =>[q V r]
(b) ¬q,
(c) r.
Then ¬p. The argument is invalid.

By (b) and (c), we know that [q V r] ≡ s is true.

Unfortunately this tells us nothing about p because from p V s and s one cannot infer anything about p.

To see this, let’s come up with an example that satisfies the assumptions when p is either true or false. Suppose p is true. Since p V s, we now infer that s is true, which accords with the assumption. Suppose now that p is false. Since s is false, p V s is true.

In other words, this also satisfies both assumptions.

Hence, the way the argument is stated cannot lead to the conclusion that the moon is not made of cheese. This shows that you can have valid conclusions with invalid arguments.


But the point is that it's BS.

And BiggDawg ... with your spelling and grammar, I’d be careful to talk about embarrassment.

 

[Diver Dennis]

I'm not laughing D. Congratulations!

 

[pir8]

Gee.. and I *JUST* got this today too... you buncha party poopers..

Laugh all ya want, *I* thought it was kinda cool...

D.

No matter what anyone else has to say from me its congratulations.

 

[Cacia]

Gee.. and I *JUST* got this today too... you buncha party poopers..

Laugh all ya want, *I* thought it was kinda cool...

D.

[/QUO

Congratulations! Don't let the jaded people rain on your parade. I did mine cause it was fun at the time. One specialty was a fish ID class that helped me to complete the fish survey class for REEF surveys. I wanted to learn the Indo Pacific fish because I had just moved here and it was a lot of fun to help with surveys. Sure, I could have learned it alone with a book, but it was a social thing at the time, done over a few beers. Don't underestimate the thrill of an invite to the Northwest Hawaiian Islands or some other opportunity that having a Divemaster affords. You people are too practical sometimes.

Folks: Let's not forget the social component! The environmental work....it's not all about honing your dive skills or even money. Why do we have dive skills in the first place? To see things....well, some of us are interested in the underwater world not just the physics and the gauges, etc. I think the tropical people are under-represented here in these discussions. Many of us like hanging out on boats, seeing others we know out on the water, and it is like a big party. My paid trip to the Hilton and my airfaire was paid by an environmental group who wanted a Reef survey done at the Kelly Slater invitational. I doubt if I did not have my DM I would have been asked because they would have been more worried about the autonomy issue, etc. Some of these certs are one more component in a lifestyle.

 

[TheRedHead]

I think you can deco with fishes, Catherine. :28:

Richard Pyle discovered deeps stop when he was decoing with fishes. He had to vent their little swim bladders.

 

[pir8]

Well said Catherine

 

[Daylonious]

Thanks Pir8, Catherine96821, Diver Dennis! -

It was just ironic that I was reading through this thread and that came in the mail today...

D.

 

[Thalassamania]

Perhaps the irony will serve to help us all to remeber the human side of diving.