Deep Stops Increases DCS

[DavidFL]

Correct.

The really sad part is amateur readers and participants, like you and me, are able to see the errors of the explanations and incorrect connections being shown to us, and the errors in changes being made and proposed, by the trusted credentialed science posters.

Aren't you the guy who was accusing Dr's Doolette and Mitchell for attempting to operate outside the peer-review 'system'?

 

[oya]

Correct.

The really sad part is amateur readers and participants, like you and me, are able to see the errors of the explanations and incorrect connections being shown to us, and the errors in changes being made and proposed, by the trusted credentialed science posters.

So you don't believe in climate change, do you?
Or evolution?
Or gravity?

 

[The Chairman]

With all do respect to Ross and his detractors, can we get back to the discussion of the SCIENCE and leave the accusations and one upping out of this thread? You're effectively silting out the discussion with all this off topic crap. Since I'm now in the thread, I'm not going to attempt to clean this up, but I have asked mods to look at it and act accordingly.

 

[oya]

With all do respect to Ross and his detractors, can we get back to the discussion of the SCIENCE and leave the accusations and one upping out of this thread? You're effectively silting out the discussion with all this off topic crap. Since I'm now in the thread, I'm not going to attempt to clean this up, but I have asked mods to look at it and act accordingly.

I do agree that the name-calling and the back and forth is silly. However, there must be some way to make clear that there are two very distinct voices that always pop up in these conversations. One is a voice of science and one is a voice of commerce. They don't agree (in fact, they tend to go at it like a couple of adders); however it is important to know which is which before you can have an informed discussion.

For my part, I get upset when newer divers are given incorrect info (eg: back-inflate BCs are dangerous because they float you facedown on the surface) by someone they see as a "superior" then go on to repeat it to others. This sort of thing happens as a result of this discussion over and over again.

It's a terribly complicated topic which is silty at best, and made constantly siltier by one of the driving voices of the very debate.

 

[igor p]

With all do respect to Ross and his detractors, can we get back to the discussion of the SCIENCE and leave the accusations and one upping out of this thread? You're effectively silting out the discussion with all this off topic crap. Since I'm now in the thread, I'm not going to attempt to clean this up, but I have asked mods to look at it and act accordingly.

Agree with this position. There are quite some posters that are provocating and silting the thread. It is not just Ross's fault for heated debate but others too.
I backed out of it just because of that.

Unfortunately there are people that think only science is always correct, but in truth we have seen lot of times simple man solve the most complicated enigmas where scientists didnt have a clue.

With all due respect to all scientists on the thread, everyone is allowed to have his own opignion and right to defend it. Science is not apriori correct.

Sometimes data that seem best evidence are just crap and other times they are correct.

They need to be chalanged. Theory is theory and sometimes anecdotal evidence in numbers big enough are more reliable than best experiments.

 

[oya]

everyone is allowed to have his own opignion and right to defend it. Science is not apriori correct.

This is simply not so.
Just because something is someone's opinion does not automatically allow them entry into a conversation.

If it's my opinion that witches cause the bends no matter how much "data" I have to back that up, I should not be allowed to speak at the next UHMS symposium.

 

[Shotmaster]

This is simply not so.
Just because something is someone's opinion does not automatically allow them entry into a conversation.

If it's my opinion that witches cause the bends no matter how much "data" I have to back that up, I should not be allowed to speak at the next UHMS symposium.

Hahahaha, now that is funny!

 

[scubadada]

Agree with this position. There are quite some posters that are provocating and silting the thread. It is not just Ross's fault for heated debate but others too.
I backed out of it just because of that.

Unfortunately there are people that think only science is always correct, but in truth we have seen lot of times simple man solve the most complicated enigmas where scientists didnt have a clue.

With all due respect to all scientists on the thread, everyone is allowed to have his own opignion and right to defend it. Science is not apriori correct.

Sometimes data that seem best evidence are just crap and other times they are correct.

They need to be chalanged. Theory is theory and sometimes anecdotal evidence in numbers big enough are more reliable than best experiments.

As a physician and scientist, I find this frightening. Everyone does have the right to their opinion, the problem is in the defense and support of that opinion

 

[igor p]

This is simply not so.
Just because something is someone's opinion does not automatically allow them entry into a conversation.

If it's my opinion that witches cause the bends no matter how much "data" I have to back that up, I should not be allowed to speak at the next UHMS symposium.

Waw... i did not read anything about witches here yet, you was first to post it...
But anyway we are not at UHMS symposium.
We are at public forum.....

What I read here were acusations of commercial interests for someone that does not care what algorithm you use....as he offer all that are available.... so where is commercial interes behind his position?
Nowhere... based on this I can only conclude he acts from what he believe is correct.... and try to show it with arguments he has available.

Do not want to go further with this and similar ..... please lets go back to the topic of the thread...

 

[Storker]

everyone is allowed to have his own opignion

They don't, however, have the right to their own facts.

Science is often wrong. In fact, it's usually wrong. Science is, however, also usually less wrong than "common sense" and it is less wrong for every new set of data that modifies previous models. That's what's so great with science: it is by its own nature self-correcting.
Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

in truth we have seen lot of times simple man solve the most complicated enigmas where scientists didnt have a clue.

I'd love to hear about some examples. I'm sure you can provide lots of them since we have seen this "lots of times"