I would suggest that you need a hypothesis which can be tested, and be proven true or false. I don't think the initial premise need necessarily be true. I seem to remember professors going on about using the scientific method and all that stuff.
I have been doing some research...
- Thread starter sharpenu
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I would suggest that you need a hypothesis which can be tested, and be proven true or false. I don't think the initial premise need necessarily be true. I seem to remember professors going on about using the scientific method and all that stuff.
I seem to remember something about premise and hypothesis being synonomous...
But as you wish....
Lost Yooper
Guest
I don't have any scientific info to give you. I've never seen GUE make a claim that DIR, or even it's own students, have a 100% safety record. I do know that DIR isn't going to save you from stupidity. I'll go out on a limb here and say that if you were to follow DIR in it's most strict form, something unexpectedly catastrophic would have to occur for you to die. I could be wrong (and probably am), but that is my opinion. I don't think the same can be said about those who adopt a philosophy that allows deep air and solo diving.
Just my opinion.
Mike
Just my opinion.
Mike
Yes. Essentially the same. I guess I think it is ok to start with a premise/hypothesis which may turn out to be false. Collect the data, and see where it takes you.
In this instance, I think it would be more difficult to absolutely prove the safety record of a given agency since there is the possibility of an unreported incident. But disproving a premise that XYZ training agency has never had a fatal accident would only require a single confirmed instance.
absolutely agree with you...
that's the way the scientific method works....
But the scientific method won't give us the results that we need....
That is why I said the premise was flawed....
We really don't need to know whether XYZ's marketing hype is true....
We need a statistical comparison of the safety record of
XYZ vs. YZX vs. ZYX
A premise is essentially an assumption or proven fact/phenomenon. Its the building block of truth upon which we try and build. The phrase; "GI3 claims that that no DIR diver has died" is a premise. It is also a false premise as his assertion has been that no WKPP diver has ever died under his direction.
A hypothesis however, is a guess or prediction, and it usually is predicated on an assumption or three. It is the leap of faith using deductive reasoning and grounded in the truth of the premise. Consider the phrase; "If DIR is as "All That" safety wise as GI3 claims, THEN we should find a lower incidence of deaths among DIR divers. This is a hypothesis that is used to test a premise. Clear as mud yet???
Now, here are some obvious non-controllable variables as you embark on this noble cause...
Diving hours/death
Difficulty of dives
Fitness level of the various divers
Mean age of the various divers
Diving environment
Support of divers (surface and sub-surface)
Wet suit/drysuit
AND I haven't really gotten started yet. I am sure that this list would EASILY quadruple if we put our minds to it. So many complain as to why insurance agencies/cert agencies/Dan don't give us numbers... thats why. It's too darned confusing and too dang easy to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. Realistically, we would probably find that in %100 of all cave diving deaths, that the deceased was wearing fins. Hmmnnnnnnnnnn... anyone want to give up their fins? Determining the mitigating/contributing factors and then the ultimate cause of death is tough and some accidents are simply indeterminate. We may never understand the mechanisms of many accidents. The only ones who really know for sure in any accident are God and the poor diver. Neither of them are particularly glib about this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dissuade you from this discovery. I just think you should know how daunting the journey will be.
A hypothesis however, is a guess or prediction, and it usually is predicated on an assumption or three. It is the leap of faith using deductive reasoning and grounded in the truth of the premise. Consider the phrase; "If DIR is as "All That" safety wise as GI3 claims, THEN we should find a lower incidence of deaths among DIR divers. This is a hypothesis that is used to test a premise. Clear as mud yet???
Now, here are some obvious non-controllable variables as you embark on this noble cause...
Diving hours/death
Difficulty of dives
Fitness level of the various divers
Mean age of the various divers
Diving environment
Support of divers (surface and sub-surface)
Wet suit/drysuit
AND I haven't really gotten started yet. I am sure that this list would EASILY quadruple if we put our minds to it. So many complain as to why insurance agencies/cert agencies/Dan don't give us numbers... thats why. It's too darned confusing and too dang easy to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. Realistically, we would probably find that in %100 of all cave diving deaths, that the deceased was wearing fins. Hmmnnnnnnnnnn... anyone want to give up their fins? Determining the mitigating/contributing factors and then the ultimate cause of death is tough and some accidents are simply indeterminate. We may never understand the mechanisms of many accidents. The only ones who really know for sure in any accident are God and the poor diver. Neither of them are particularly glib about this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dissuade you from this discovery. I just think you should know how daunting the journey will be.
Pete,
I was under the impression that there have been no fatalities in the WKPP under Irvine's direction. Is that not true?
Neil
I was under the impression that there have been no fatalities in the WKPP under Irvine's direction. Is that not true?
Neil
That is a true statement of facts. That claim however, has NEVER been made about ALL the DIR certified divers. We don't want to put words in people's mouths and then hold them accountable for something they did not say.
jimholcomb
Guest
First, Steve Berman died solo in a cave 3500' back. DIR does not allow solo. Jonathan Gol's death is still under investigation by the IUCRR (of which I'm a member). He was, in fact, a WKPP diver but was diving on a non-WKPP sanctioned dive. Medical issues are suspect in his case as he was on medical leave from the WKPP when this occured.
There have been NO fatalities on WKPP sanctioned dives since George took over. The safety record was some what less impressive prior to his implementing the DIR philosophy.
GUE has never made any claims as to 100% safety record.
As far as fatalities in general, the IUCRR (International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery Commission) is charged with the responsibility of recovery of the unfortunate and compiling the accident reports and doing the accident analysis I have addressed several dive organizations on some of this data.
There are very few unknown reasons for fatalities. Most are a result of violating a rule that any trained cave diver should know regardless of their philosophy. There is no real way to know what exact difference (body count) DIR has made without going back in time and not developing it and see what happened. I'm going to attempt to attach an image from a ppt presentation i give that I think you'll find interesting. Keep in mind that this chart is fatalities amoung TRAINED cave divers. Almost 80% of cave fatalities are because of un-cave trained O/W divers entering caves.
There have been NO fatalities on WKPP sanctioned dives since George took over. The safety record was some what less impressive prior to his implementing the DIR philosophy.
GUE has never made any claims as to 100% safety record.
As far as fatalities in general, the IUCRR (International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery Commission) is charged with the responsibility of recovery of the unfortunate and compiling the accident reports and doing the accident analysis I have addressed several dive organizations on some of this data.
There are very few unknown reasons for fatalities. Most are a result of violating a rule that any trained cave diver should know regardless of their philosophy. There is no real way to know what exact difference (body count) DIR has made without going back in time and not developing it and see what happened. I'm going to attempt to attach an image from a ppt presentation i give that I think you'll find interesting. Keep in mind that this chart is fatalities amoung TRAINED cave divers. Almost 80% of cave fatalities are because of un-cave trained O/W divers entering caves.
jimholcomb
Guest
You can also find the presentation on the IUCRR website - <www.iucrr.org/aa.htm>
Similar threads
