Solo tech diving article

[Diver0001]

Actually, Stan, all I see Rick saying is that the argument in favour of diving solo can not logically be supported by discussing the risks of diving with a buddy.

It's like saying "you need to buy a Ford because Chevys suck" as opposed to saying "you need to by a Ford because Fords rock". See the point he's making?

Of course, if you disagree with that premise then we have an interesting discussion on our hands....so now the question back to you.... how do you see it?

R..

 

[rjchandler]

No no no...... She is Chandler's floatation device on solo dives. Which is why he likes to dive solo.

Better trim than those donut shaped wings.

 

[serambin]

Actually, Stan, all I see Rick saying is that the argument in favour of diving solo can not logically be supported by discussing the risks of diving with a buddy.

It's like saying "you need to buy a Ford because Chevys suck" as opposed to saying "you need to by a Ford because Fords rock". See the point he's making?

Of course, if you disagree with that premise then we have an interesting discussion on our hands....so now the question back to you.... how do you see it?

R..

If a Chevy sucks, then it does make sense to buy a Ford based on that 'fact', and only on that fact. In the real world, things aren't that simple, so generally, you don't make decisions based on a single issue.

For example, if you go to a John the barber and John leaves gaps in your hair, you might well tell others not to go to John and not go back yourself. In essence because John sucks. The next logical step is to find a barber that doesn't suck. There are many barbers out there that do not suck, but at this point you do know which do, and which don't, but you'll take a chance on one, hoping to find a solution to your problem.

Apophatic arguments are valid. Often you can't say make positive statement about an issue, but you do know some of the things that do not work, or are not true, and that can form a basis for rational departure from past activities.

You don't have to know that 1+1=2 to be certain that 1+3!=2.

Stan

 

[Diver0001]

Now we're really getting to the core of the issue. It isn't about solo diving or buddy diving at all. It's about the logic of the arguments. Let's wait until Rick responds....but first.....

If a Chevy sucks, then it does make sense to buy a Ford based on that 'fact', and only on that fact.

In my book, no. It makes *considering* a Ford worth the effort but to just go out and buy one is just a gamble. It could very well be worse than a Chevy

For example, if you go to a John the barber and John leaves gaps in your hair, you might well tell others not to go to John and not go back yourself. In essence because John sucks. The next logical step is to find a barber that doesn't suck. There are many barbers out there that do not suck, but at this point you do know which do, and which don't, but you'll take a chance on one, hoping to find a solution to your problem.

Of course, you know that John's problem is that he sold his crappy Chevy and bought a 2nd hand Ford from a guy named Chuck and missed all of his barber classes because his truck 's always in the garage. Chuck's Ford was for sale because Chuck was so frustrated with all the problems that he strangled his mechanic and is now doing time.

John wants to buy his Chevy back again but he'll never be able to afford it because he's such a lousy barber. Meanwhile, Donny, the guy who bought the Chevy, has taken the time to work out all the bugs in the Chevy and is quite content with it.



R..

 

[Creed]

I prefer to dive solo to control my urge to self destruct because I am showing off to a buddy. My TECHNIQUE FOR SOLO DIVING is to lie to my logbook and say I was accompanied by Jessica Alba who chose to be topless fer that particular dive.

My God, sir! Brilliant!!! Sorry, former dive buddies in my log, you are now becoming Daisy Fuentes....*scribble scribble scribble*

 

[serambin]

Now we're really getting to the core of the issue. It isn't about solo diving or buddy diving at all. It's about the logic of the arguments. Let's wait until Rick responds....but first.....



In my book, no. It makes *considering* a Ford worth the effort but to just go out and buy one is just a gamble. It could very well be worse than a Chevy



Of course, you know that John's problem is that he sold his crappy Chevy and bought a 2nd hand Ford from a guy named Chuck and missed all of his barber classes because his truck 's always in the garage. Chuck's Ford was for sale because Chuck was so frustrated with all the problems that he strangled his mechanic and is now doing time.

John wants to buy his Chevy back again but he'll never be able to afford it because he's such a lousy barber. Meanwhile, Donny, the guy who bought the Chevy, has taken the time to work out all the bugs in the Chevy and is quite content with it.



R..

Are you now saying that Chevys don't suck? Then why did you first say . . . I'm fused.

Stan

 

[Diver0001]

Are you now saying that Chevys don't suck? Then why did you first say . . . I'm fused.

Stan

Not really. Aside from being funny (at least *I* thought it was funny), I was trying to make the point that if your Chevy sucks it doesn't mean a Ford is any better.... maybe it's even worse.

R..

 

[serambin]

Not really. Aside from being funny (at least *I* thought it was funny), I was trying to make the point that if your Chevy sucks it doesn't mean a Ford is any better.... maybe it's even worse.

R..

That was my pitiful attempt at humor as well.

 

[markfm]

Buy Japanese
Overall, my take is that the article could be an example of what's called a False Dilemma argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

The False Dilemma would be the concept that either "Diving with a buddy is always safer" or "Diving solo is always safer".
The Bad Buddy examples would show that "Diving with a buddy is always safer" is False, which then leads to the False Dilemma, of saying that "Diving solo is safer" must be True.
Unfortunately, it's not a binary case to start off with, and the dilemma is there -- it's leaping to a conclusion, that B must be true since A is False, while A and B do not encompass the spectrum of possibilities.
I'm new, have done a few solos, gear check kinds of things in areas I have dove multiple times, open water, redundant air, shallow, others in the vicinity,... I freely admit limited experience, but I would believe that overall:
A good buddy pair = safest
A good, knowledgeable, solo diver, within limits = next
A bad buddy pair = next
A bad solo = worst
(the last two can be neck-and-neck, but you would really need a CF buddy to get you in trouble as fast, as seriously, as being a CF solo)

Two trained people, in sync, do get you to two heads available to solve a problem. One well trained, fully responsible, person, properly geared, should by definition be diving within his/her limits, and have appropriate redundancy and signal gear to cover most whoopses (though in an entrapment that buddy brings the extra hands that a solo never has). A bad buddy at least gives me someone to shove towards the hungry Great White, and there's at least a chance of one of the team making it out, simplifying recovery (I didn't say rescue). A bad solo is a statistic in the making.

So, while I absolutely appreciate the concept of solo diving, think it's great, believe in doing it, it's inherently an activity of personal responsibility, knowingly assuming risk that would not occur with a good buddy. Saying "I know the risks, believe in my gear and training, choose to do it" is the only explanation required for solo diving. Saying "Bad buddies may cause major SNAFUs" is simply a separate topic.

It's like hiking, though more extreme in likely consequences. I regularly solo hike, including pretty far out in the middle of nowhere. I also do group hikes, treks around the world and extended backpacking. There are times when the when/where/what of a trip means I'll do it solo, beacuse I choose to do so, but I don't say I go solo because a bad hiking buddy can cause problems.

 

[Scuba]

try, try again...
I'll try one more time.
The original post in this thread tries to assign some inherent safety in solo diving by bashing buddies.
It is a classic fallacy. Sort of like saying "The grass is green, therefore the sky is blue."
"Bad buddy" stories and "bad buddy" conjecture don't have anything to do with the risks of solo diving.
This forum exists to discuss solo diving, not bad buddies.
Therefore, the original post is nothing but a troll - it purports to be a discussion of solo tech diving when in reality it is nothing more than a compendium of "why buddies are bad." It is a fallacious, sorry article that does nothing to promote safety in solo technical diving; it's arguments are specious and illogical.
Now, if anyone would like to discuss solo diving, or to discuss legitimate questions like "in what scenarios would you choose to dive solo; in what scenarios would you choose to take a buddy; in what scenarios would you want a team of three?" then that would be great. This is a place to discuss solo diving in particular, but it certainly isn't off limits to discuss when you'd choose to not go solo...
As for the general point about buddies the KISS version is this: A bad buddy can kill you; a good buddy can save you.
Rick

Frankly Rick, I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post. I can see from your first post in this thread that you understood my awareness of the flawed arguments employed in the article. Your quote from me in this post does not commit the same fallacy. It was merely in reference to other flawed arguments somethimes used in justifying buddy diving. As you put it: the sky is blue. Period. I never said anything beyond this. On the other hand, you derived a flawed conclusion based on your supporting argument on your other post. Same as the article, except using a different method.

So, I do see a positive resulting from discussing such an article.

One: That its name and context will give a chance for reflection to those who ardently promote the buddy system based solely or primarily on like or similar flawed arguments.
Two: That its discussion brings to the attention of others these flawed reasoning arguments. Whoever makes them for whatever reason.

The article, seen as a means to promote a type of diving is flawed, but I might as well take advantage and point out similar flaws used to promote the buddy system. Not a popular stance. Something very difficult to do in other discussion areas, since the topic is bound to be quickly shifted or the arguments degenerate into insults and accusations. Your typical character assassination. I'm not saying you do this.

There is no lack of buddy system promotion, industry wide, that in my opinion misleads new divers about the risks inherent in buddy diving. Many of this same flawed propaganda arguments are made over and over again in favor of general buddy diving. Do you, and others, object to them as strenously? Not a knock, as I'm glad you and others point out flawed arguments in favor of solo diving here, just a point to ponder. And I might as well add that I don't always point them out. The point is, the resulting consequences from these flawed arguments can be just as dangerous, either buddy or solo.

This forum exists to discuss solo diving, not bad buddies.

For some of us, Solo, is a perfectly acceptable and good option as a means to deal with the problem of bad buddies. Don't misunderstand this to mean that is the only reason, primary reason, or any reason for that matter, why I choose to Solo any particular dive. There are other options that should be considered. There is no one option that is for everyone, all the time. I understand this is a sensitive subject for you and others, but please put it in perspective and understand what is a legitimate choice when properly considered.