And yet.. still, your ISS formula... is untested, not proven, unverified, plainly invalid for the purpose of comparing dissimilar profile types, doesn't stand up to one second of analysis. Your previous assertions of any connection to pDCS are plainly false.
Prove your formula is fit for purpose...with validated and independent testing... where is it ??
But look at what your doing here... trying to sneak more garbage pseudo science in the back door, and getting the faithful to soak it all up (a fait accompli) while you attack me for things that are not true.
It doesn't matter how many times you come here to BULLY me around with your "Argument From Authority" phony justifications and straw man arguments..... and placate the fan boys... this Simon Mitchell approved - Kevin Watt's ISS formula, is meaningless junk science.
There is a clear precedent that censoring forums is not the duty of the forum owners for a number of reasons....
1) when you signed up to the forum *you* took responsibility for the content you post
2) we will take down posts where they contravene the T&C’s or when there is legal guidance to so do.
3) On a more positive note, I think that in the debate, so much more is learned ... 10 years ago deep stops were all the rage ... had I followed your approach should I have deleted anything which did not promote deep stops. Should I now delete all the pro deep stop posts and reinstate all the posts which advocated against deep stops? It would be a minefield I would not want to enter. How ever by allowing all sides to air their views on such topics I think the whole community is learning.
4) id also say that a consensus opinion is not the same thing as a fact ... I am in no position to test the veracity of either Simon’s or Ross’s statements and would not attempt to.
and finally ... should I remove all references to pony bottles because I think they are demonstrably wrong !!
At least get rid of all snorkel comments
I agree with everything you say. You and other forum owners have pretty much done the right thing throughout the deep stops saga.
You are right about this. The only problem is that it presupposes that true experts on a particular topic will engage in correcting on-line misinformation, and in the process put themselves at risk of abuse, accusations of data fabrication and misleading the public etc in an egalitarian community that does not readily distinguish between experts and non-experts portraying themselves as experts. I have engaged because this IS my community; I am a passionate technical diver, and I will not see the field’s knowledge base corrupted by unqualified commentary, especially on an issue that relates to safety. In this case it is lucky that several other high level authorities (including, arguably, the world’s leading context area expert) have also stuck their head above the parapet, but more often than not my colleagues will stay away from forums to avoid the consequences one can see in any of the on-line discussions about the deep stops issue. The unresolvable bottom line, is that the internet is all at once a source of fantastic information and terrible misinformation, true experts will frequently avoid engaging, and it is often difficult to tell what you are looking at.Originally Posted by Mal
The other danger worth mentioning and which we have seen arise in the deep stops discussions, is that with the wrong person driving it the debate can appear much more polarised than it really is. I have been portrayed as rabidly anti-deep stops, but that is nonsense. Every decompression has to have a deepest stop, and I am the first to admit that if you make it too shallow then you could get into trouble. Equally, if you make it too deep then you may also get into trouble, especially if you marry it with an approach which assumes that doing deep stops means you can actually do less shallow stops. Our point throughout has debate has simply been that the available evidence suggests that deep stops as prescribed by bubble models are probably too deep for optimally efficient decompression. We have freely admitted that we are not sure how far to back away from those deep stops. This is an important perspective to maintain.
Last edited by simon mitchell; 11-07-2019 at 08:32 PM.
I don't want to get technical or anything, but alcohol IS a solution
Another danger worth mentioning and which we have seen arise in the deep stops discussions....
... is when a professional in the field, decides they want to change the world to suit their own ideals. They use their position of privileged to dictate their own views directly onto the public, and operate beyond the controls and peer review system that normally ensures correct and valid information. Most professionals know this is bad practice and avoid exerting undue influence this way.
The most insidious form is when a professional decides to manipulate the interpretation of sciences and literature to then promote a personal perspective which includes biased or erroneous details. Then they go on to encourage amateurs to join the cause, who further add more pseudo and junk science and plainly fake data to the fallacy positions.
This becomes an issue of social manipulation for unqualified change by reason of personal popularity of the presenter, and not science. There are clear cut examples in these forums and the problem continues today.
This is the internet - a place that professionals and amateurs can both enjoy equal rights to make comment, and question, oppose and refute the opinions of others.