Posted by Bill Johnson on August 13, 2001 at 16:42:49:
In Reply to: Picking and choosing which *rules* apply posted by MHK on August 13, 2001 at 11:09:34:
I can see why you could get frustrated. You have to remember though, when you present rules from your diving persuasion, that is contradictory to other persuasions that are probably more established, your rule will be challenged so of course you are required to defend your persuasion.
If there are two conflicting rules based on separate data or lack thereof, the diver must choose which rule seems more logical on his own. For example, you commented on the "time to fly" rule. Who's rule is it anyway? You say the rule has no basis, when in fact there have been many studies with verifiable data supporting some sort of "time to fly" rule. DAN has released new numbers that are contrary to the 24 hour rule, that one could make their rule. You support the time it takes you to drive to the airport rule, which also is based on nothing more than one divers hunch and self-trials. You are satisfied with this rule, even thought there is no evidence to support it. Others REQUIRE more evidence before they can elevate a HYPOTHOSYS to LAW.
I think this is what frustrates both sides of the diving philosophy fence. One side has irrefutable data proving their position while another side chooses to make up their own contrary rule for what seems out of convenience. The problem is that the choice is left to the diver that may not be capable to deciphering the correct choice. Sometimes the choice is based on ignorant statements such as, "It's just a dive industry BS rule designed to make shops money", which could really mean that the diver is ignorant to the basis of the rule. This problem will continue as long as new rules are introduced. Debate is good because it can sometimes prove which rule is correct. Diver education is one way to help eliminate the problem. Debate may not always protect the correct rule though because emotion is sometimes intertwined with the rules. I can think of a certain S word that is the perfect example of this.
I think people should think outside the box too! My philosophy is question everything; compare and contrast; REQUIRE verifiable supporting data. If a rule can't stand up to these tests, I disregard it. If it seems to withstand these tests, I use the rule until it doesn't work or until a better one is determined. What frustrates me is when minds get liberated, they go and choose another box.
Post a Followup