Will http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25525213 change deco procedures?

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Well thank you for the answer and clarifying your position. That wasn't so hard after all.

I think the position was clear enough previously. Everybody else seemed to get it.

I will make this promise - if science can come up new real data, backed up with some full rounded theory, peer reviewed...

You should have added ".... that confirms my own beliefs." Every debate I have had with you on the internet has been because you give precedence to your own preconceptions and biases (at least some of which have an obvious commercial motive) over "real data" produced by "science" "backed up with some full rounded theory, peer reviewed" and published. That's the problem Ross; unless the science is confluent with your own beliefs you set out to discredit it. That would be acceptable if it we were debating the relative merits of proper studies with conflicting results. This happens frequently in science. But in the debates with you it has almost exclusively been you attacking ground breaking studies (the first to address specific issues) with no scientific basis for doing so.

...no paid trolls...

Can I bring you back to your insinuation that there were paid trolls on the RBW thread please. This is a significant allegation which I am taking seriously. Who were the trolls and who paid them?

Simon M

 

[shoredivr]

I would like to sincerely thank Simon Mitchell and David Doolette for continuing to educate divers on new diving science in a clear way. And for repeatedly correcting the ridiculous barrage of obfuscation and rudeness coming from rossh.

Why on earth not position yourself as a leader, incorporating new science where appropriate? Before the RebreatherWorld epic thread referenced several time here, I would have thought the owner of a company that makes decompression software would be interested in new science that could have real implications for divers. Instead, it's a combination of the Wizard of Oz (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) and a petulant teenager.

 

[rossh]

I would like to sincerely thank Simon Mitchell and David Doolette for continuing to educate divers on new diving science in a clear way. And for repeatedly correcting the ridiculous barrage of obfuscation and rudeness coming from rossh.

Why on earth not position yourself as a leader, incorporating new science where appropriate? Before the RebreatherWorld epic thread referenced several time here, I would have thought the owner of a company that makes decompression software would be interested in new science that could have real implications for divers. Instead, it's a combination of the Wizard of Oz (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) and a petulant teenager.

I have promised to add the new decompression model to MultiDeco - if it can be shown to be valid with a full data, supported by valid theory, peer reviewed and so on. I'd be happy to do that, but......

This current information is none of those. It is one isolated profile, and a test in non-DCS conditions, and those do not make a decompression model. In fact, no one even knows what or how to integrate this test data, including the scientists who did the work. Look at the vague answer Simon gives when pressed.

******

So you think asking questions in a forum is not appropriate? Showing and discussing how the new science of David is conflicting with the existing science and works? Getting them to answer questions they don't want to do. You don't like that?? Do you think instead we should just accept the the postings of Simon and David at face value, and sit here silently? How sad for you.





---------- Post added December 20th, 2015 at 12:57 AM ----------

Every debate I have had with you on the internet has been because you give precedence to your own preconceptions and biases (at least some of which have an obvious commercial motive) over "real data" produced by "science" "backed up with some full rounded theory, peer reviewed" and published.

Simon M

This is the basis of these arguments Simon:


The problem we have, is someone (you) occasionally keeps trying to stretch out the meaning and context of the science work that is being done. They try to read in too much significance, or try to connect pieces that do not match up. They cherry pick small parts without taking the big picture into considerations. In short, they don't do their homework. That is the basis of these arguments that keep coming up.

This little niche activity of ours is a neglected area of science. To have new science make a challenge to preconceptions and existing science is fine and normal. But, No matter how well intentioned, it is not an excuse to allow the over ambitious exaggerations of one, to overrule to the exclusion of all existing works. We are being pressured with sensationalized and exaggerated explanations. Don't let him ruin it for everyone.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

The problem we have, is someone (you) occasionally keeps trying to stretch out the meaning and context of the science work that is being done. They try to read in too much significance, or try to connect pieces that do not match up.

I challenge you to go back and read the CCRX thread on this helium - nitrogen kinetics subject. The only thing I have claimed in relation to this subject is EXACTLY what the studies showed about the comparative kinetics of the two gases. There has been no exaggeration or extrapolation beyond what the studies showed. And indeed, when divers have asked whether they can apply the findings to shorten decompression from deep dives we have suggested that they don't. You admit this yourself:

In fact, no one even knows what or how to integrate this test data, including the scientists who did the work. Look at the vague answer Simon gives when pressed.

Can you not see how you have contradicted yourself here? On the one hand you accuse me for "stretching the meaning and context" of the work, and on the other you criticise me, effectively, for declining to provide practical meaning and context of the work.

The debate with you arose, not because we were trying to exaggerate the implications of the work, but because you came along all guns blazing suggesting on naïve and spurious grounds that it could not possibly be correct. I sense you have finally realised that is a losing argument so now you are shifting your point of attack to something else... the lack of an immediate practical application for the findings. Well guess what Ross... we are comfortable with that. Real science typically moves in small steps. This is just another brick in the wall of our knowledge of decompression physiology and we are declining to go further than that right now. In the fullness of time it will no doubt contribute to the development of optimised approaches to decompression but that will require more work.

So you think asking questions in a forum is not appropriate? Showing and discussing how the new science of David is conflicting with the existing science and works? Getting them to answer questions they don't want to do.

I think I have a very long record that demonstrates I am very happy answering questions on internet forums, and of course it is appropriate to do so. If I did not believe that I would stay away from internet forums. I don't think Shoredivr was implying that we should not be questioned for one picosecond, but given your substantial lack of self awareness I don't hold much hope of you appreciating the actual point of his message.

Simon M

---------- Post added December 20th, 2015 at 09:20 PM ----------

And for those who would like to see the issue discussed, without all the paid trolls interference and their marketing fluff.

Ross, in a separate post now so that it does not get forgotten.... this is a significant allegation which you have chosen to post on a public forum and can presumably back up.

Can you please identify the thread participants you believe were paid and also who paid them?

Simon M

 

[rossh]

Simon,

It's Christmas time and I'm not wasting it on this anymore. You have been nit picking and trying to create a fight with me for more than a month now. Your last post in actually quite ok, but its the exception.

I suggest you ask Santa to bring you a book or a puzzle or something else to occupy your time with.

merry xmas.

 

[Storker]

It's Christmas time and I'm not wasting it on you and your frivolous nit picking and argumentative dribble. You have been trying to create a fight with me for more than a month now. I'm sick of your childish antagonistic nonsense.

Pot, meet kettle.

AFAIU, Simon is quite sensible. If you don't understand what he's saying, that's your problem, not his. If you do, I see no other explanation that you're being dishonest.

Happy Yuletide.

 

[kr2y5]

I do not think calling someone "dishonest" is helping to put this back on track.

From where I sit, accusatory, disrespectful, inflammatory statements are coming from both sides in comparable amounts, every single post contains an insult. Both parties want a technical discussion, but you cannot have a technical discussion when you spend 100% of your time defending your dignity. The winning strategy is to resist the temptation to respond in kind, and try to reply without a trace of snark, hostility, or resentment. I doubt either party genuinely believes that the other has bad intentions.

I wonder how much consensus there is on what exactly constitutes the actual technical disagreement?

 

[UWSojourner]

I do not think calling someone "dishonest" is helping to put this back on track.

From where I sit, accusatory, disrespectful, inflammatory statements are coming from both sides in comparable amounts, every single post contains an insult. Both parties want a technical discussion, but you cannot have a technical discussion when you spend 100% of your time defending your dignity. The winning strategy is to resist the temptation to respond in kind, and try to reply without a trace of snark, hostility, or resentment. I doubt either party genuinely believes that the other has bad intentions.

I wonder how much consensus there is on what exactly constitutes the actual technical disagreement?

A story is told of a man standing on the side of a road. He witnessed, in quick succession, a man push an elderly woman into the path of an oncoming bus. Seeing this, another man jumped into the street and pushed the elderly woman out of its path.

The man who witnessed this scene then stated, with moral superiority, “Well! I’m appalled at the site of two men pushing an old lady around!”

Sorry kr2y5. But your moral equivalency is off the mark, though it’s probably just out of ignorance. This crap Ross has been pulling has gone on for YEARS on these forums and I’m appreciative of Dr. Mitchell and others who have been calling him out on it in order to educate divers. And I might add with an admirable amount of patience and restraint.

It’s unfortunate, but if you’re forced to wrestle a pig you’re gonna get a little dirty.

 

[kr2y5]

A story is told of a man standing on the side of a road. He witnessed, in quick succession, a man push an elderly woman into the path of an oncoming bus. Seeing this, another man jumped into the street and pushed the elderly woman out of its path.

The man who witnessed this scene then stated, with moral superiority, “Well! I’m appalled at the site of two men pushing an old lady around!”

Sorry kr2y5. But your moral equivalency is off the mark, though it’s probably just out of ignorance. This crap Ross has been pulling has gone on for YEARS on these forums and I’m appreciative of Dr. Mitchell and others who have been calling him out on it in order to educate divers. And I might add with an admirable amount of patience and restraint.

It’s unfortunate, but if you’re forced to wrestle a pig you’re gonna get a little dirty.

There's also the famous story about two girls trying to enter a bathroom, and arguing for an hour which one should go in first.

This has nothing to do whatsoever with morality, it is a matter of being pragmatic. If your goal is to have a discussion, and stop having to respond to insults, then responding in kind is very much counterproductive.

 

[tursiops]

If your goal is to have a discussion

Seems like you are making a bit of an assumption here.