Teamcasa:
I have read so many posts that use only anecdotal evidence to support a particular point of view. To me this is down right dangerous in some cases. How many times have we all read Ive been to 160 fsw on air and did fine or I came up from 100 and did not do a safety stop or I dont get narcked at 120 fsw. This sends a message that if I did it, you should be fine so go ahead and try it!
A very good point, although I might take a slightly different view of the message implied by such statements, at least in some cases. If someone asks, 'Can it be done?' (whatever 'it' might be), and a respondent says, 'Yes, and I have done it.', that is not necessarily a recommendation for others to do the same. It is a factual answer to a question. There is 'flip side' to the issue, as well. Not infrequently, points of view are (firmly) expressed on the basis of theoretical concerns, which have not been verified by science, either. Using the example of depth and narcosis, as I am one who has said, 'I have dived to 165 ft on air and did fine.' - there are those who have said they will not dive below 100ft except on mix. A reasonable personal choice, which is appropriately offered for others on SB to consider. What are the objective data to support that anecdotal view? What are the objective data to suggest that outcomes (safety, enjoyment, etc,) are statistically influenced by the use of air or mix for diving in the 100 - 160ft range? And, I am certainly not arguing against the use of mix at a particular depth by any means, only illustrating the challenges we face when there are simply no objective data. And, at the risk of really opening Pandora's box, I would offer the opinion that much of the debate over agencies, standards, etc., while stimulating and thought-provoking, falls in the same category. It is simply not possible to make objective, statistically sound, determinations regarding comparative safety records, or even trends.
Teamcasa:
I believe in the premise that science trumps anecdotal evidence every time. So when someone presents a situation where the only evidence is anecdotal, do more research before trusting the information.
Sound advice. Part of the value of SB is that it allows individuals to offer opinions, AND to supply the basis of those opinions, which includes the logic and reasoning but also supporting, first person experience in many cases. The opinions should be, and for the most part are, offered with no warranties implying that they can be applied to other individuals (or even to the same individual at any other point in the future for that matter). The fundamental problem we have is that there are very little, in fact almost no, data to guide many of the decisions we make as divers make. Science does trump anecdotal evidence. We need more applied science.