I understand it, far more than you think I do. I argue that it isnt the be all and end all. Its great and all, but people shouldnt just put 100% trust into a system that doesnt garantee 100% success.
I never said you or anyone else is specifically putting blind faith in anything. I am advising that people shouldnt.
I am putting it out there that just because a cam has a sigma3 testing standard, doesnt mean it automatically qualifies as safe. And that we are wise to treat all our gear with a healthy dose of skepticism.
You say yourself that there can never be 100% garantee. putting defects aside, sigma3 rating states that there is still a chance that a cam is not going to work as promised. As slim a chance as it is, it still can happen. It can still happen to you, or to me. And a Sigma3 stamp, UIAA stamp or a 16Kn stamp isnt going to do much to stop it.
You can statistically analyze a cam all day, but it wont stop it from being the bodgy cam in the production line.
Im sorry, I didnt realise I entered a debate with you patto, I was just stating another opinion, obviously you missed my point as well.
I dont particulalry care whether a scientific point of view can be achieved with or without statistics. I just want my cam not to break. And for me not to fall and die.
|