Is anecdotal evidence dangerous?

[The Chairman]

But, I believe the USN may have conducted or funded more scientific study of decompression than any other singular organization(based on nothing but a hunch). Their tables are based on thousands of real, objectively studied dives, conducted I'm sure to the best of scientific method.

Diving in the U.S. Navy: A Brief History

Navy Diving | History

NavyDiver.org - History

DivingHistory.com - Evolution of Navy Diving

Four interesting articles. The basis for the Navy tables, was of course Haldane's work with goats. Stilson just changed the subject of the study.

 

[The Chairman]

But here's the interesting thing, the recreational community had a horrible record diving U.S. Navy tables

Now, here we have an anecdotal conclusion presented as a fact and it is based on what? A perception? An agenda? I would love to see some FACTS and STATISTICS to back up this claim of a "horrible diving record".

 

[Thalassamania]

Ah, so we've now come around to the view that 5 minutes at 160 with a direct 60 fpm ascent to the surface is OK with respect to science, but anecdotally is unsafe.

Now, here we have an anecdotal conclusion presented as a fact and it is based on what? A perception? An agenda? I would love to see some FACTS and STATISTICS to back up this claim of a "horrible diving record".

The generally accepted DCS risks are 1:1000 for the commercial diving community, 1:10,000 for the sports diving community and 1:100,000 for the science community.

 

[grazie42]

I have a hard time imagining that any individual is able to function in "our" society without at least some ability to apply critical thinking to their external interactions.

With regards to decompression, the only thing I´m confident in is that all the possible solutions to any given problem cannot be equally right (for me), though perhaps the subpopulations they are right/wrong for cancel eachother out and so leaving different solutions equally "good" for the population as a whole...it doesen´t leave you any less screwed if you´re part of the wrong subpopulation for the "equally good" solution though...

I have a range of dives that I do "regularly" and in that range I´ve adjusted one solution to something I feel works better for me (and my regular buddy), determined thru anecdotal evaluation of outcomes. It´s not science but it works better for the only "datapoint" that matters to me...me!

I´m not interested in solutions that apply to the "general population" (whatever that might be), I´m interested in solutions that apply to me. Sometimes a good starting point can be found in science, sometimes in anecdotal evidence, the only thing that matters is results...

 

[miketsp]

What about the testimonials on the Spare Air site?
Are they anecdotal evidence?

 

[ClayJar]

What about the testimonials on the Spare Air site?
Are they anecdotal evidence?

Yes, but the question is "Of what?"

 

[The Chairman]

Ah, so we've now come around to the view that 5 minutes at 160 with a direct 60 fpm ascent to the surface is OK with respect to science, but anecdotally is unsafe.

Its a Scientific Wild Arse Guess and no more. They were not developed around your particular morphology nor were they done to the specific characteristics of that dive.

The generally accepted DCS risks are 1:1000 for the commercial diving community, 1:10,000 for the sports diving community and 1:100,000 for the science community.

So, if the sport diving community is "horrible", just how do you describe the commercial diving community? Where do these "generally accepted" risks come from? Anecdotes? Feelings? It goes back to that old adage that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot (and yes, that is purely anecdotal).

 

[Thalassamania]

Its a Scientific Wild *** Guess and no more. They were not developed around your particular morphology nor were they done to the specific characteristics of that dive.

There's no such thing as a "Scientific Wild *** Guess," that's a concept invented by you to discredit men way smarter than both of us.

So, if the sport diving community is "horrible", just how do you describe the commercial diving community? Where do these "generally accepted" risks come from? Anecdotes? Feelings? It goes back to that old adage that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot (and yes, that is purely anecdotal).

OSHA.

 

[The Chairman]

There's no such thing as a "Scientific Wild Arse Guess," that's a concept invented by you to discredit men way smarter than both of us.

Another anecdote I see. The term SWAG came from WWII era scientists and possibly the Manhattan project in particular (though I have no corroborating evidence). I know for sure that I didn't invent the term, but I sure see a LOT of scientists and pseudo-scientists use them with little to no thought as to what they are doing.

 

[The Chairman]

OSHA.

So does OSHA use the word "horrible"? Where would one find these figures and when did OSHA start tracking all sport divers?