Another Tables vs. Computers Thread

[Blackwood]

TNone of you have given a "really good" reason to not teach tables in class. It doesn't take long, all computers are based off them, and it doesn't hurt anything. The only reasons I've seen here underneath the rhetoric is "I don't feel like teaching it" and "I don't feel like learning it". Lousy reasons.

I disagree. I believe that the following argument was given, and that it is a good one (paraphrasing):

As certified divers, the vast majority of my students will not use tables. As such, in the interest of their safety, I'll concentrate on giving them the very best education I can about the tool that they will choose to employ.

Sound.


I can teach you how to drive both a standard transmission and an auto. But if you're always going to drive an auto, shouldn't I concentrate on that rather than spending time on something that will, by-and-large, remain unused?

 

[The Chairman]

That what I get for reading the whole thread before responding. It was mentioned (check out posts 74 & 112) but with multiple replies with quotes it seemd that it was brought up more often than it had been.

OK, 1 person brought this up twice... and the second time he referred to it being ONLY an estimation. This proves my point... your perceptions may be flawed.

You just told us (and I assume that you have no narcosis or other impariment at that moment) that MANY people have brought up this argument. The computer says: 1.

Such are tables and estimations, especially done at depth (NitrOx, not Trimix here) where narcosis is surely to affect your perceptions and your ability to draw logical conclusions even more.

Now on top of this, we are talking about students with limited experience. They don't know what is "normal" and they surely are going to have issues tracking their N2 load the way you suggest.

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

This is a terrible excuse for not teaching the theories in your class. ...

... None of you have given a "really good" reason to not teach tables in class. It doesn't take long, all computers are based off them, ...

No computers currently on the market are based on tables. There haven't been any table based computers since the early 90s.

This post is a perfect example of thinking you know something about decompression theory because you know how to use a table. There is no correlation.

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

Quote from Deeper Into Diving, Lippmann and Mitchell, October 2005:

"In any event, the use of any decompression tables by recreational divers is diminishing, rapidly being replaced by dive computers. Divers Alert Network (DAN) Project Dive Exploration data from 1998 to 2002 indicated that from a sample of 6,611 divers, 77% reported using dive computers and only 2% used tables."

Let's keep spending 97% of our time teaching sliderules and 3% of our time on calculators.


(BTW, I think 94% of that 2% that reported using tables have posted in this thread.)

 

[lamont]

Let's keep spending 97% of our time teaching sliderules and 3% of our time on calculators.

I vote we teach arithmetic first and then teach calculators. They did teach you how to add, subtract, multiply and divide in grade school, right?

 

[IwakuniDiver]

Quote from Deeper Into Diving, Lippmann and Mitchell, October 2005:

"In any event, the use of any decompression tables by recreational divers is diminishing, rapidly being replaced by dive computers. Divers Alert Network (DAN) Project Dive Exploration data from 1998 to 2002 indicated that from a sample of 6,611 divers, 77% reported using dive computers and only 2% used tables."

Let's keep spending 97% of our time teaching sliderules and 3% of our time on calculators.


(BTW, I think 94% of that 2% that reported using tables have posted in this thread.)

OK, next time you go and dig up statistics, make sure you understand completely what you're looking for. If I had taken the survey, I would be in the 77% that reported using a computer. What DAN's survey doesn't tell us is how many people know HOW to use a table.

Just because I know how to use tables, doesn't mean that I'm not going to use my computer. Just like I know very well how to do simple math, but it won't stop me from using a calculator. I'll just have a better understanding of what's going on underneath.

Ultimately, it's really up to the diver whether or not they want to learn anything. I'm nobody special to tell people what they should or shouldn't know. It's just my personal opinion that laziness is the only reason for not learning basic principles. And arguing over differences in opinions or beliefs is pretty pointless.

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

I vote we teach arithmetic first and then teach calculators. They did teach you how to add, subtract, multiply and divide in grade school, right?

Yes, they did. And I agree, teach arithmetic first.

But I see nothing in OW class that equates to learning arithmetic. I see tables as the same as learning log tables, slide rules, even an abacus. I suggest demonstrating them to the student, and if they want to know more about them send them home to read the instruction book. (Kinda like what is recommended by some for computers.) (Or, of course, the instructor could spend additional time with the interested student.) Then spend the saved time and effort to teach them to use computers correctly.

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

... What DAN's survey doesn't tell us is how many people know HOW to use a table.

And I know HOW to use a slide rule. Do you? They stopped teaching that tool a while ago. Has that hurt your ability to function? I think not.

... Just like I know very well how to do simple math, but it won't stop me from using a calculator. I'll just have a better understanding of what's going on underneath.

There is that same 'understanding' myth again. When you learned arithmetic did you learn flip-flop logic? Did they teach you binary arithmetic? Do you really understand what is going on 'underneath'? (Don't YOU answer that, Lamont.) Or do you just have a knowledge of what the correct output should look like?

EDIT: (ID, I see that you are a computer professional. I'm sure that you, like Lamont, do have an understanding of what is going on underneath in calculators. No offense meant.)

... It's just my personal opinion that laziness is the only reason for not learning basic principles. ...

Tables are not 'basic principles'. They are basic application. Knowing how to use them is not knowing anything about deco theory. Surely we all agree on that, yes?

 

[The Chairman]

It's just my personal opinion that laziness is the only reason for not learning basic principles.

Again, what principles am I not teaching? How does a letter group better represent Nitrogen loading over a picture of a bubble? Tables are not a diving panacea. Using them is purely mechanical and does little to promote the understanding of deco theory.

I might also add that if not learning to use tables is a sign of being lazy, then knowing HOW to use these tables and not using them is the HEIGHT of laziness.

 

[radinator]

OK, 1 person brought this up twice... and the second time he referred to it being ONLY an estimation. This proves my point... your perceptions may be flawed.

You just told us (and I assume that you have no narcosis or other impariment at that moment) that MANY people have brought up this argument. The computer says: 1.

Such are tables and estimations, especially done at depth (NitrOx, not Trimix here) where narcosis is surely to affect your perceptions and your ability to draw logical conclusions even more.

Now on top of this, we are talking about students with limited experience. They don't know what is "normal" and they surely are going to have issues tracking their N2 load the way you suggest.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is trying to tell other people how to dive.