Why do people add a few minutes to their last deco stop?

[lermontov]

Why "pseudo"? Why "guesses"? If you have that little confidence in your deco plan, why do you even use it?

 

[Alekseolsen]

View attachment 819333

Why do I have a feeling folks "work" woth different definitions of Pesudo-science?

1: pseudoscience = Homeopathy, myths and sayings

2: Best models we do have available, but has not been proved "always right" (and is wrong every now and then).

 

[BlueTrin]

Yes, I know all of that.
I'm questioning calling this pseudo-scientific, and producing just guesses.
Seems like hyperbole....
I'd of thought you could do better.

I’d agree with you, I think when he means to say that the results were obtained through trial and error and we still have many unknowns..

But this does not mean it is not scientific, trial and error is definitely part of the scientific process.

 

[L13]

Unfortunately we can't do better. The deco algorithms that most of us use have only undergone limited scientific validation, especially when it comes to deep or repetitive diving. For most tech diving it's a mix of science, guesswork, and experience. Seems to work well enough, and if we want to do these dives at all then we just have to accept that our approach isn't truly scientific.

It is as truly scientific ans anything scientific is. Science isn't perfect knowledge, otherwise scientists would be out of a job as soon as the first science was done.

 

[L13]

Two days ago the weather report for my Zip code said it was clear and there was a slight chance of rain much later that night. I went right out to walk the dog and we got soaked in a downpour 5 minutes later.

Empirically deco models seem to work pretty well most of the time. But occasionally someone gets an "unearned hit" and no one can reliably explain why...

That doesn't make it "not science."

 

[L13]

To even compare the two shows a lack of desire to understand the nuance of @Nick_Radov 's post. Just the private weather forecasting industry in the United States is an industry larger than DEMA claims the total GDP impact of scuba diving and snorkeling. ($11.6B vs. $11B)

Add in government agencies and non-government research, and you have a whole heap of money trying to predict the weather with research, modeling, and observation. Just NOAA alone has 17 satellites that cost nearly $5B orbiting the earth and providing good quality quantitative data to researchers for modeling.

I doubt I could even come up with a number for how much is spent each year researching decompression globally. My guess is you could fit everyone studying decompression on divers this year around the globe on a 737, and more than likely on a regional jet with no space for their carry-on luggage.

Do you really think that a handful of human experiments with extremely limited scope, some tests on animals in labs, and empirical observations is even remotely akin to the wealth of scientific effort put into weather forecasting? It wasn't that long ago that Pyle Stops were the rage in deco, are you positive we're right this go round?

One scientist alone with limited budget is still doing science.

 

[L13]

Why do I have a feeling folks "work" woth different definitions of Pesudo-science?

1: pseudoscience = Homeopathy, myths and sayings

2: Best models we do have available, but has not been proved "always right" (and is wrong every now and then).

Pseudoscience = pseudo + science
pseudo = not real, fake, an illusion, giving the appearance (but not the reality)

Anyone using the 2 definition above does not understand English.

 

[L13]

I’d agree with you, I think when he means to say that the results were obtained through trial and error and we still have many unknowns..

But this does not mean it is not scientific, trial and error is definitely part of the scientific process.

Even calling it trial and error is misrepresenting it.

 

[boulderjohn]

There has been a lot of good science done in the area of decompression theory, with some pretty famous scientists essentially devoting their life's work to it.

Here is the opening of the Wikipedia article on the term "pseudoscience."

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[​

To apply that term to more than 100 years of research is absurd.

 

[boulderjohn]

Several years ago I published an article on the latest research and the current thinking for decompression procedures on decompression dives, and I wanted to do the same thing for NDL dives. I discovered that there is not a whole lot of recent research on that topic. I realized that one of the reasons for that is that after more than 100 years, the science is considered pretty much settled. We have reached the point that people who dive within accepted guidelines are pretty darn safe, with only a very tiny percentage getting DCS.