Allow Speculation?-Split from Catalina Diver died today

[Ken Kurtis]

Ken, I know you said your post was not a slam on me. But it was a pretty intense and angry rant in which you dissected my entire post...and I do feel slammed.

Sorry to hear that. My apologies. But as I tried to make clear, my comments were not a personal slam at you. And FWIW, I'm not at all "angry". Really & truly. Re-read my post, even out loud, do it in a calm tone of voice and see if it feels different.

Well, at the very least I feel my opinion was slammed, and pretty hard.

Bingo!!! Yes, agreed. And that was the point of my "this is not a slam at you" comment. I disgaree STRONGLY with some of the opinions you stated. I stated my disagreement strongly. I'm happy to be challenged on any of the opinions I expressed. But that doesn't mean I think badly of you. In my mind, different things.

That all being said, there was really only one comment I wanted to address here:

I disagree that speculative discussions are irresponsible.

There's no question they can be useful. But it's irresponsible (IMHO) to present specualtion as fact. And that is done with an alarming frequency in these types of threads.

I have no problem with people speculating (despite the exact words I posted that said "can we end the speculation"). But label it as such. It's when people take their speculation, post it as if it's fact (because they weant to appear that they "know" something), and then subsequent dicsussions are based on this "fact", THAT'S when I think things get out of hand.

This would be an example of what I'm talking about:

(SPECULATION CLEARLY LABELLED) "Is it possible that they had a heart attack underwater? Could they have felt it coming on? And if so, could that cause them to bolt?"

(SPECULATION PRESENTED AS FACT) "They had a heart attack and felt it coming on which caused them to bolt to the surface."

In my mind, there's a big difference there. So I DON'T mean "Don't ever speculate" (even though I phrased it that way - could have done a better job there), I'm simply saying that IF you want to explore various options/scenarios, clearly label their speculative nature.

We do this all the time when we're doing the actual investigation. There are usually a set of known/undisputed facts, and we try to see what scenarios would fit to have caused the events to play out as they did.

In this particular case, we know from the instructor's statements that the diver bolted. The real question is WHY did they bolt. So among the theories we'll want to look at would be:

1. Out of air (not supported by the evidence)
2. Reg won't deliver air (equipment tests pending - no anecdotal support)
3. Over-breathing reg (hard to determine without air-integrated computer)
4. Shallow hyperventilation, CO2 buildup (no medical test for it - anecdotal only)
5. Leaky reg (equipment tests pending)
6. Mask problems (can't clear and panicked)
7. Cardiac problems (which are harder than you might think to pinpoint as the actual cause)
8. General anxiety/panic attack
9. Loss of negative buoyancy (weights came off - not supported by the evidence)
10. Spooked by aquatic life (not supported by anecdotal)
11. Other underlying medical problems

All of these are speculation. And we'll look at each one and say, "Well if A happened, then B would have happened, and if B isn't there in the evidence, then A is ruled out." Stuff like that.

And while I don't ever expect that the speculative discussions here will ever take on that level of deliberation, all I'm asking/saying is tread lightly when doing so. (And I'm not even angry is saying any of this.) End of current rant.



- Ken

 

[Leejnd]

Ken, thank you for this thoughtful and insightful post. I believe you brought up some important points, as well as clarified and cleared the air a bit.

Some comments:

Sorry to hear that. My apologies. But as I tried to make clear, my comments were not a personal slam at you. And FWIW, I'm not at all "angry". Really & truly. Re-read my post, even out loud, do it in a calm tone of voice and see if it feels different.

Well, I gotta admit that reading the phrase "I'm sorry, but that's absolute crap" out loud, even in a calm voice, still has an uncomfortable tone to it...but I accept your apology.

There's no question they can be useful. But it's irresponsible (IMHO) to present specualtion as fact. And that is done with an alarming frequency in these types of threads.

And here are two things we agree on: 1) that some speculative discussions are useful, and 2) presenting speculation as fact is bad. I certainly never said, nor meant to imply, that presenting speculation as fact is a good thing. I don't think any of us "pro-speculators" did, or would, say that.

I have no problem with people speculating (despite the exact words I posted that said "can we end the speculation"). But label it as such. It's when people take their speculation, post it as if it's fact (because they weant to appear that they "know" something), and then subsequent dicsussions are based on this "fact", THAT'S when I think things get out of hand.

Thank you for clarifying that you agree that some speculative discussions in these threads are okay. So it sounds like you and I agree on a lot more than it seemed at first glance, doesn't it?

ANYONE posting something as fact when it's not is unacceptable. But personally I wouldn't refer to that as "speculating". I would refer to that as "lying".

In my mind, there's a big difference there. So I DON'T mean "Don't ever speculate" (even though I phrased it that way - could have done a better job there), I'm simply saying that IF you want to explore various options/scenarios, clearly label their speculative nature.

And once again, thanks for acknowledging that you could have expressed your thoughts a little better (couldn't we all?), and for clarifying that your issue is not so much with speculation as a whole, but with presenting speculation as fact. I don't think you are going to find anyone who disagrees with you on that.

And while I don't ever expect that the speculative discussions here will ever take on that level of deliberation, all I'm asking/saying is tread lightly when doing so. (And I'm not even angry is saying any of this.) End of current rant.

Fair enough...and you certainly have MY agreement to do this!

 

[Ken Kurtis]

My SOLE point was that we can't control the behavior of others...

No we can't. But . . .

We can control our own behavior. And if we all agreed to control our own behavior, then that would sort of solve the problem, wouldn't it?

THAT was my point.

- Ken

 

[Jax]

Stealing from "I love a good arguement. . . ", Lynn said

I love a good discussion or polite debate, but there are prerequisites to having one:

1. Everybody involved has to have a reasonable amount of information on the topic. Remember that information is different from an opinion, which is something everybody has.

2. Everybody involved has to pay reasonable attention to what is being said by the other participants in the discussion. This means not reading the OP and then sounding off on the fourth subsequent page, without having read any of the intervening posts.

3. Everybody involved has to have some ability to present his argument in an intelligible, coherent, and dispassionate manner.

4. The focus must remain on the ideas being discussed, and not on the possible parentage or personal habits of the discussants.

In about eight years of participation on internet BBs, I don't think I have ever seen a single thread where all four criteria were fulfilled by everyone involved, through the entirety of the thread.

As much as we would love people to 'meet' a critera with by labeling with "IMO" and "SWAG", it just "ain't gonna happen" . . . . . . IMO.

 

[Captain12Pk]

Thank you for making my point for me. Speculation in these threads is inevitable. It's not just this one. It's ALL of them.

And I disagree that it's useless and a complete waste of time. Even the mods have jumped in and agreed that speculation has a place in these threads.

I'd sure like to see the discussion get off "speculation is bad" and get back to the actual incident, what can be learned from it, and what more information might have come out. Anyone else want to see that?

Can you please explain to me how speculation on this matter (or others like it) can be anything but bad?
Unless I have missed something, the only information we know for sure is that a diver, one of our peers, is in fact dead. Everything else I've seen posted is coming to us from AT LEAST second hand. Much of it complete hearsay. To my knowledge, we still do not know the cause of death or the actual circumstances leading to the death. So how can any of the speculated info. being spewed forth in the original thread be relevant?

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I agree that people should be careful about what they post in the A&I forum. Facts should be stated as such along with the known source (firsthand observation, coroner's report, etc.). If contributed, secondhand knowledge should be clearly identified (things you heard from a responding EMT, details of the incident communicated after the incident by someone directly involved with the incident, etc.). Qualifying statements should be used when appropriate: "If this were the case, then..." or "It is possible that..." or "The likely chain of causative events might be..." When qualifying statements aren't used or sources aren't cited, it can be difficult to distinguish speculation from fact. Contributing to the confusion is a lack of comprehension of what was written and/or allowing one's assumptions or emotions to obscure the content of the posts.

Ken, this is an excerpt from your post on the original thread (now moved to this thread):

For instance, someone in this thread said they heard it was a Basic OW dive. Someone else added in that if that's the case, they shouldn't be going to 100'. Then someone chimed in about how it was a standards violation. None of that has any basis in fact or relates to the actual accident.

In response to these posts made on the original thread:

I have to apologize to everyone. For some reason, I was under the impression that the victim was taking part in an AOW or deep specialty course. I deduced this based on: (1) the "deep sea certification" language in the news report and (2) the info regarding max depth (about 65 fsw).

After re-reading the facts and posts in this thread, I think that it's quite possible that the woman was doing her Basic OW training. If that's true, wouldn't exceeding a depth of 60 fsw be a breach of PADI standards?

That would be a minor violation of the maximum depth limit, but you have to remember that the source of that depth information was the same source as the term "deep sea certification." It could be a case of the reporter asking someone how deep the water was there and writing that reply. It may not mean the diver actually reached that depth.

No apologies needed. I was told she was doing the deep portion of AOW.

There is a clear discrepancy between what was written and Ken's recollection of the posts. This can happen to any of us. This has happened to me on more than one occasion on SB, and others have called me on it.

I try to be as clear as I can when I post to the A&I forum. Perhaps that's not enough. In reviewing my posts, I feel as though I have adhered to the special policies of the thread. Others may disagree. If I have violated those special rules, then I sincerely apologize and I would hope that Mods would edit/delete my posts. If I haven't broken any rules, then perhaps the rules should be changed as has been proposed. I will be happy to comply.

 

[Jax]

Can you please explain to me how speculation on this matter (or others like it) can be anything but bad??

See #27 for the logical analysis.

 

[bjjman]

Look at you people complaining about how people clutter up a thread with speculation, meanwhile you do worse by cluttering it up with your personal agenda! Now that they've moved these posts to a new thread I'll comment, since HERE is the right place to do it; not in an accident thread.

To all who oppose speculation: [Insert middle finger here.] Somehow you get on your high horse and think it's your right to endanger my life. I've learned so much more from speculation in the accident threads than facts have ever taught me. Speculation is healthy. Speculation is informative. And speculation just may save my life one day (heck, maybe it already has).

The biggest lesson I've learned from speculation on the recent Catalina accident is that if I ever find myself unable to get air, but all signs are saying I should have it, I may well be shallow breathing and I need to exhale big, inhale deep, exhale big, etc and see if that solves it.

I haven't had any problem separating fact from speculation in that thread. Someone that doesn't have the metal acuity to differentiate them may want to think twice about using a life support system under water.

FWIW, I know who the instructor and dive shop are and I know she is an excellent instructor based on conversations I've had with those that have taken her Advanced class. I planned, and still plan, on taking a Deep Diver and/or Night Diver course with her.

 

[Leejnd]

Can you please explain to me how speculation on this matter (or others like it) can be anything but bad?
Unless I have missed something, the only information we know for sure is that a diver, one of our peers, is in fact dead. Everything else I've seen posted is coming to us from AT LEAST second hand. Much of it complete hearsay. To my knowledge, we still do not know the cause of death or the actual circumstances leading to the death. So how can any of the speculated info. being spewed forth in the original thread be relevant?

I believe I (and others) have answered this question ad infinitum. Please go back and read the thread, and you will find our opinions on this issue stated clearly. I will refrain from repeating them.

Please also note that there have been some nice clarifications of the differences between valuable and useless speculation in these types of threads. Reading these might also help illuminate this for you.

 

[Leejnd]

Look at you people complaining about how people clutter up a thread with speculation, meanwhile you do worse by cluttering it up with your personal agenda! Now that they've moved these posts to a new thread I'll comment, since HERE is the right place to do it; not in an accident thread.

To all who oppose speculation: [Insert middle finger here.] Somehow you get on your high horse and think it's your right to endanger my life. I've learned so much more from speculation in the accident threads than facts have ever taught me. Speculation is healthy. Speculation is informative. And speculation just may save my life one day (heck, maybe it already has).

The biggest lesson I've learned from speculation on the recent Catalina accident is that if I ever find myself unable to get air, but all signs are saying I should have it, I may well be shallow breathing and I need to exhale big, inhale deep, exhale big, etc and see if that solves it.

I haven't had any problem separating fact from speculation in that thread. Someone that doesn't have the metal acuity to differentiate them may want to think twice about using a life support system under water.

FWIW, I know who the instructor and dive shop are and I know she is an excellent instructor based on conversations I've had with those that have taken her Advanced class. I planned, and still plan, on taking a Deep Diver and/or Night Diver course with her.

Bjjman - I probably shouldn't be offering my resounding thanks for this post, because I'm the one who went into such detail about how we all need to disagree respectfully yadda yadda. And your post does have a wee bit of hostility in it. But I can't help myself...I just gotta say a resounding THANKS!

Thanks for cutting to the chase and explaining why these "anti-speculators" are really the ones who are mucking up these accident threads, while the rest of us are trying to talk about the incident and LEARN from it. Every single accident thread gets hit with these stop-speculating-rants. Now I have hope that the mods will dump all of 'em in THIS thread, and allow the valuable (and sometimes speculative) incident discussions to continue!