Allow Speculation?-Split from Catalina Diver died today

[Madacub]

When we say "If a diver is overweighted, then...." that is scenario hypothesizing, but when we post in a thread about a drowned diver that "it is entirely possible that this diver was overweighted..." that is uncalled for speculating. And it isn't just semantics.

We all understand and benefit from the discussions that follow. I'm not disputing that. But all those discussions and benefits can follow without speculating as to the facts in a particular instance. For that, just wait for the facts to come out. If they don't, they dont. I think that is probably what a lot of people posting against speculating mean.

Yeah, it's a free country...

 

[Jim Lapenta]

If the speculation bothers you the answer is simple. Stay out of the discussion. No one is forcing you to read any of these things. fact is there are many who DO CHOOSE TO improve their knowledge and look at EVERY possible way to do that. If speculation causes one of the many piss poor trained divers coming out of a quickie OW class to reevaluate their training, reconsider a dive that they have not been trained for, or go back and ask their instructor why they got shortchanged and did not get all the info they should have, every bit of speculation- no matter how outlandish- was worth it. People die in this activity. That is a fact. One that is too often overlooked in the name of getting Joe Yuppie to part with his money and in the water as fast as possible. Regardless of the outcome.

 

[DennisS]

The problem with the speculation in the accident thread is that some of us go there to find facts on the accident and we have to wade through assumptions, opininions and speculation to find the limited facts available.

Perhaps the forum could be divided between information and lesons learned.

I realize that the information available is often flawed but newspaper reports, people that were there and related source provide a semi realistic view of what happened.

Cluttering it up with everone's pet theory may be useful as a training tool but it dilutes the actual information on the incident. There might be 5 or 6 posts with actual information on the accident and 50 posts of opinions.

If we could separate the wheat from the chafe it would be useful to separate information from training scenarios.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

When we say "If a diver is overweighted, then...." that is scenario hypothesizing, but when we post in a thread about a drowned diver that "it is entirely possible that this diver was overweighted..." that is uncalled for speculating. And it isn't just semantics.

@Madacub: My understanding of the English language is that the phrase "it is entirely possible" merely states that a possibility exists, with the adverb "entirely" indicating an increased likelihood of the possibility. The difference I see in the two examples you present is not one that can be characterized as "scenario hypothesizing" vs. "uncalled for speculating [sic]." Both point out the possibility of being overweighted. The difference lies in specification. The first statement does not specify whether that possibility applies to the incident in question but it is implied, whereas the second one has a more explicit formulation.

Perhaps we shouldn't be complaining about "uncalled for" speculation.
Perhaps we should be complaining about a lack of reading comprehension...or incorrectly layering our own assumptions onto what has been written...or not accurately recalling what was written.

As a side note, I'm not sure how/why the term "speculation" has acquired such a negative connotation in the A&I forum. The "Special Rules" sticky allows for it provided that certain criteria are met. Let's agree to either change the rules or stop complaining about it.

I'll concede that the English language ain't perfect...but it's all we've got on these forums.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

The problem with the speculation in the accident thread is that some of us go there to find facts on the accident and we have to wade through assumptions, opininions and speculation to find the limited facts available.

Perhaps the forum could be divided between information and lesons learned.

I realize that the information available is often flawed but newspaper reports, people that were there and related source provide a semi realistic view of what happened.

Cluttering it up with everone's pet theory may be useful as a training tool but it dilutes the actual information on the incident. There might be 5 or 6 posts with actual information on the accident and 50 posts of opinions.

If we could separate the wheat from the chafe it would be useful to separate information from training scenarios.

@DennisS: I think that you make a very compelling argument for the creation of a "Facts only" A&I forum. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

 

[Cave Diver]

The problem with the speculation in the accident thread is that some of us go there to find facts on the accident and we have to wade through assumptions, opininions and speculation to find the limited facts available.

Perhaps the forum could be divided between information and lesons learned.

I realize that the information available is often flawed but newspaper reports, people that were there and related source provide a semi realistic view of what happened.

Cluttering it up with everone's pet theory may be useful as a training tool but it dilutes the actual information on the incident. There might be 5 or 6 posts with actual information on the accident and 50 posts of opinions.

If we could separate the wheat from the chafe it would be useful to separate information from training scenarios.

@DennisS: I think that you make a very compelling argument for the creation of a "Facts only" A&I forum. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/suggestions/

 

[Madacub]

The problem with the speculation in the accident thread is that some of us go there to find facts on the accident and we have to wade through assumptions, opininions and speculation to find the limited facts available.

Perhaps the forum could be divided between information and lesons learned.

I realize that the information available is often flawed but newspaper reports, people that were there and related source provide a semi realistic view of what happened.

Cluttering it up with everone's pet theory may be useful as a training tool but it dilutes the actual information on the incident. There might be 5 or 6 posts with actual information on the accident and 50 posts of opinions.

If we could separate the wheat from the chaff it would be useful to separate information from training scenarios.

Exactly. Precisely. Dead on.

 

[Madacub]

If the speculation bothers you the answer is simple. Stay out of the discussion. No one is forcing you to read any of these things. fact is there are many who DO CHOOSE TO improve their knowledge and look at EVERY possible way to do that. If speculation causes one of the many piss poor trained divers coming out of a quickie OW class to reevaluate their training, reconsider a dive that they have not been trained for, or go back and ask their instructor why they got shortchanged and did not get all the info they should have, every bit of speculation- no matter how outlandish- was worth it. People die in this activity. That is a fact. One that is too often overlooked in the name of getting Joe Yuppie to part with his money and in the water as fast as possible. Regardless of the outcome.

JimLap, I generally agree with most of what you said. But I don't think you addressed my point at all. Which is that all the benefits can easily be obtained without such direct speculation about a particular incident.

 

[Madacub]

@Madacub: My understanding of the English language is that the phrase "it is entirely possible" merely states that a possibility exists, with the adverb "entirely" indicating an increased likelihood of the possibility. The difference I see in the two examples you present is not one that can be characterized as "scenario hypothesizing" vs. "uncalled for speculating [sic]." Both point out the possibility of being overweighted. The difference lies in specification. The first statement does not specify whether that possibility applies to the incident in question but it is implied, whereas the second one has a more explicit formulation.

Perhaps we shouldn't be complaining about "uncalled for" speculation.
Perhaps we should be complaining about a lack of reading comprehension...or incorrectly layering our own assumptions onto what has been written...or not accurately recalling what was written.

As a side note, I'm not sure how/why the term "speculation" has acquired such a negative connotation in the A&I forum. The "Special Rules" sticky allows for it provided that certain criteria are met. Let's agree to either change the rules or stop complaining about it.

I'll concede that the English language ain't perfect...but it's all we've got on these forums.

Bubble, it seems you really object to my saying "uncalled for". Sorry. I'll agree that might tend to muddy the waters. My point still stands even without that phrase.

Loooks like this discussion is going in the direction of making some changes...

As far as using English goes, we could all switch to German - I hear their irregular verbs are a real blast! (Anyway, that's what Saki says)

 

[Ken Kurtis]

But all those discussions and benefits can follow without speculating as to the facts in a particular instance. For that, just wait for the facts to come out. If they don't, they dont. I think that is probably what a lot of people posting against speculating mean.

(Emphasis added.)

I think that pretty much summarizes my concerns/objections better than I've been able to.

- Ken