Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 134
  1. #101
    TDF Member Moleshome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    405
    Likes (Given)
    215
    Likes (Received)
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by cathal View Post
    Should forum owners not have a duty to ensure their forum does not propagate content that is demonstrably wrong and that could be harmful if acted upon?
    Now that really would be opening up Pandora's box.

  2. #102
    New TDF Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    14
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    6
    Now open...

  3. #103
    TDF Member Moleshome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    405
    Likes (Given)
    215
    Likes (Received)
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
    Now open...
    Nice box ...

  4. #104
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by simon mitchell View Post
    This has been explained to Ross many times and he either does not understand it, or choses to ignore it. Citing ISS in radically different scenarios like these indeed takes it out of its useful application, which is comparing decompression stress in relatively similar profiles such as a VPM vs GF decompression of the same duration from the same depth and bottom time.


    blah blah blah.....


    Simon M



    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.
    x

  5. #105
    A Moderate Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    1,106
    Likes (Given)
    252
    Likes (Received)
    1158
    Quote Originally Posted by cathal View Post

    Should forum owners not have a duty to ensure their forum does not propagate content that is demonstrably wrong and that could be harmful if acted upon?

    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 !!
    Mal

  6. #106
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Chippenham
    Posts
    199
    Likes (Given)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    52
    At least get rid of all snorkel comments

  7. #107
    Established WTF Member Spirit of Guernsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Guernsey
    Posts
    6,779
    Likes (Given)
    4306
    Likes (Received)
    5258
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post

    and finally ... should I remove all references to pony bottles because I think they are demonstrably wrong !!
    Mal
    Most definitely.
    There are four varieties in society: the lovers, the ambitious, observers and fools. The fools are the happiest.
    Hippolyte Taine – French critic and historian (1828-93)

  8. #108
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    170
    Likes (Given)
    32
    Likes (Received)
    353
    Hello Mal,

    I agree with everything you say. You and other forum owners have pretty much done the right thing throughout the deep stops saga.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal
    On a more positive note, I think that in the debate, so much more is learned ...
    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.

    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.

    Simon M
    Last edited by simon mitchell; 11-07-2019 at 08:32 PM.

  9. #109
    Gimme a medal BenL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Exiled Plymothian in Enfield
    Posts
    1,184
    Likes (Given)
    729
    Likes (Received)
    680
    Blog Entries
    2
    Well that’s about as equivocal as it gets.

    http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk
    I don't want to get technical or anything, but alcohol IS a solution

  10. #110
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Hello Mal,


    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.
    x


 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •