Indeed. I've always wondered what the back story is on this one. Bob's animosity aside, why is Dave Gauthier saying essentially the same thing?
Printable View
Indeed. I've always wondered what the back story is on this one. Bob's animosity aside, why is Dave Gauthier saying essentially the same thing?
I feel like I should clarify that Dave G is not really saying the same thing as Uttl - the main similarity is accepting that missing data are a problem, which sort of goes without saying. Dave G is trying to come up with historic prevention values for the Avaluator from the Canadian accident database, after taking reasonable steps to analyze and reduce missing data.
Most of the (technical) arguing is over the 'missingness' mechanism in the data, or why we can't answer all the OCM questions for each accident. Dave G concludes that the reasonable approach is to improve the database by researching the accidents, rather than inventing data to fill the gaps (or ignoring the gaps).
No idea about the rest of the arguing...
I certainly do not want to mis-characterize Dave G's abstract, and I apppreciate the comment and clarification.
Honestly, as I read it, I think Bob U is also saying that "that the reasonable approach is to improve the database by researching the accidents, rather than inventing data to fill the gaps (or ignoring the gaps)." I think he would argue (to put it mildly) that he tried to do that and was rebuffed.
Obviously, he feels like he needs to raise a stink, and has done so on every possible occaision. I'm not so sure that that's a bad thing. Where else are you going to raise these issues in a public forum other than at ISSW? That was not the way to do it, though. I'd hate to see him banned from presenting at future ISSW's, but I would certainly like to see something a bit more professional next time.
Does that sorta thing happen at other conferences like this? Do glaciologists or botonists or geologists stand up there and publicly heckle each other? And don't forget, this isn't the only simmering pissing match we've got going. The BCA/Pieps/Ortovox thing can always get fun.
Dave - thanks for taking the time to respond.
Fixed it!Quote:
Do Ski Patrollers or Avi Forecasters or Guides stand up there and publicly heckle each other?
Yes they do, part of the fun at an ISSW.
I remember a large contingent of Heli-guides walking out en mass when a certain Attorney was introduced at an ISSW several sessions past.
Stuffy conferences are for Librarians.
And no way do they drink as much beer as we did....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion
Quoted for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike
I think that the difference may be that there are very direct consequences. If the glaciologists are wrong, there may be a diffuse effect on climate change science, with a potential effect on associated policy, that has a broad but shallow effect on human lives. If the Avaluator is wrong, there may be people who decide to take an inappropriate risk that exposes them to death or serious injury, which is a narrow but deep effect on human lives. Human beings tend to justify extreme actions in the face of the latter type of risk more than the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike