Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree that there is truth to some extent, if all fields of science were to be added to the discussion then the truth would change as technology advances, if we were to discuss archeology, biology and astronomy for example there is only a few truths, most current answers are just theoretical.
string theory also comes to mind, in the field of science (physics) that is basically all theoretical.

Reality (truth) does not change based on our ability to understand it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Scientists, just like non, are still fallible.

• Note 1: I understand in the context of the OPs post I fully understand they are not stating that
• Note 2: I have to say after 239 posts I'm actually shocked that we are having this discussion here although I believe the opening post and conversation needed to take place. The noise between post 2 and 239 not so much.
• Note 3: I hope all who have participated at least have a running marine system be it FOWLR or Reef

Of course they are. Some scientists are idiots. Being a scientist no more makes you a good scientist (or, by that I mean good at discerning what is a useful description of reality) than being a musician makes you a good musician.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Reality (truth) does not change based on our ability to understand it.

Oh boy, if I need the quote ability to understand things……I’m out! Haha

 

[sixty_reefer]

Reality (truth) does not change based on our ability to understand it.

In archeology truth changes all the time as new studies are made.

for example: a new study made in 2012 changed the previous truth, suggesting that humans and chimps split a lot earlier than previously thought to be truthful.

this was why I ask what field we were discussing, in many fields of science, what most would consider truth can change as new studies are made.

 

[Thales]

In archeology truth changes all the time as new studies are made.

for example: a new study made in 2012 changed the previous truth, suggesting that humans and chimps split a lot earlier than previously thought to be truthful.

this was why I ask what field we were discussing, in many fields of science, what most would consider truth can change as new studies are made.

That isn't truth, as Randy is using the term, that is current understanding. We may never know the actual truth about a lot of things, but it makes sense to think it is out there.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In archeology truth changes all the time as new studies are made.

for example: a new study made in 2012 changed the previous truth, suggesting that humans and chimps split a lot earlier than previously thought to be truthful.

this was why I ask what field we were discussing, in many fields of science, what most would consider truth can change as new studies are made.

I do not consider predictions about things, whether past, present, or future to be the reality/truth. They are just a guess (perhaps we’ll informed, or perhaps not) at what may be the reality of what happened, is happening, or will happen.

I think that is quite clearly distinguishable from actual reality.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As an example, I consider it reality/truth that calcium and carbonate can combine in solution to form calcium carbonate, and I can even identify conditions where it is likely to happen.

But a prediction that it will happen in a future situation is fraught with potential errors for reasons that I may not understand about the situation (such as the unknown presence of calcium chelators preventing it). That future prediction is a guess, not truth/reality.

 

[Dan_P]

You see, this is we’re I struggle, one comment suggest that I’m welcome to my views and the other doesn’t.
Does this insinuate that my views are only welcome if it’s aligned with others commonly acceptable thought?

Deliberately misinterpreting statements and trotting out the notion that someone is pressuring you to think in a certain way is getting tiresome.

 

[sixty_reefer]

As an example, I consider it reality/truth that calcium and carbonate can combine in solution to form calcium carbonate, and I can even identify conditions where it is likely to happen.

But a prediction that it will happen in a future situation is fraught with potential errors for reasons that I may not understand about the situation (such as the unknown presence of calcium chelators preventing it). That future prediction is a guess, not truth/reality.

I agree, let’s imagine now that I made a theory based on my personal experience and observations on what a dendronephtya may eat. Would I be rejecting the truth?

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

In archeology truth changes all the time as new studies are made.

for example: a new study made in 2012 changed the previous truth, suggesting that humans and chimps split a lot earlier than previously thought to be truthful.

this was why I ask what field we were discussing, in many fields of science, what most would consider truth can change as new studies are made.

This is just semantics at this point, but I think what Randy is saying is that there is only one truth (one answer to why something happened/happens) regardless of what anyone or anything (science included) says and regardless of whether or not we currently believe it to be true (or even possible).

While science changes, the actual truth stays the same. Science is just our collective understanding of what the truth might be.
For examples:
A bone from a monkey will always be a bone from a monkey - even if science says it's from a bird.
2+2 will always equal 4, even if science says 2+2 equals 3.

In other words, the truth doesn't change, even if our understanding of it (our current "scientific fact") does.

So, when different people get different results with the same product in their tanks, there has to be a reason (and its only possible for there to be one correct reason) for the different results. Sometimes the reason is obvious (person one added 1ml while person two added 1000 ml, for example), and sometimes it's not (person three's water contained more organic nutrients than person four's water did, for example). Sometimes it's simple with one clear cause for the difference, and sometimes it's complicated with a number of different factors (seen or unseen) contributing to the different results. Regardless, there is only one true reason. That reason may follow our current "scientific fact," or it may go against our current "scientific fact" if our current "scientific fact" is actually not "fact" but "fiction" (i.e. if it's actually wrong). If our current "scientific facts" are actually "facts," however, then the results will always align with the "scientific facts" - even if they don't seem to (in which case, there is an unseen factor at play). So, if our science is accurate and we can see all of the factors involved in the different results which people have had, then our science would be able to explain why those results were different.

Determining fact from fiction is sometimes hard, though (as evidenced by changes in our "facts" over time), so our science (our explanation of what the truth may be) changes as more evidence (more seemingly valid support for a different explanation than one that was held previously) arises. The truth (the actual facts), as stated above, do not change even if our science does.

In other words, the truth is the truth regardless of what we humans think it is, and that's never going to change.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree, let’s imagine now that I made a theory based on my personal experience and observations on what a dendronephtya may eat. Would I be rejecting the truth?

No, unless your personal experience was an incorrect interpretation of what happened in your tank (e.g, maybe it ate things you did not see because it was at night, and only those other things gave it useful nutrition).

 

[sixty_reefer]

That isn't truth, as Randy is using the term, that is current understanding. We may never know the actual truth about a lot of things, but it makes sense to think it is out there.

And I agree with Randy, although truth has also changed in our hobby over the years. Not so long ago corals in saltwater aquaria used to be stripped clean of all the flesh before they were added to them, and only used as decoration pieces. That truth many decades after has changed.

 

[RichReef]

What is your most likely thought on reading my claim? Be honest....
That it doesn't kill corals and the coral died for some other reason?
That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell a competing product?
That maybe I dosed it wrong? (too much, wrong time of day, not enough mixing, whatever)
That the bottle I got might have been contaminated, especially if I used a DIY version?
That the coral was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.

That his tank chemistry is different than others and most likely the product reacted different in his tank. It probably had a reaction to something that may not be in our tanks. It may have have just been harmful to that exact species of coral. No one knows.

Do you likely conclude any of these things from your experiences?
That smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and my sister likely died for some other reason?
That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell cigarettes?
That maybe she smoked it wrong?
That the cigarettes she used might have been contaminated, especially if she rolled her own?
That she was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.

See above. Same thing. My Great Grand Mom lived until she was 99 years old and died because she forgot to turn on her AC on a hot day. Smoked Lucky Strikes. 2 packs a day since she was 14 years old. Never had any health complications. Absolutely none. She even mowed her own grass and shoveled her own snow. That doesn't make me want to go out and smoke 2 packs a day. Just tells me everyone is different. Just like our tanks. If you look at someone smoking and think they are going to die from it ..... yeah you're wrong. You don't know that.

There are always variables.


We only know the very basics of biologic chemistry. There are so many undiscovered things. Even in our tanks.

I only rely on my personal experience to run my tank. I've been through my trials. I don't throw that on other people though.

The problem isn't that we rely too much on personal experience. That's actually the key to personal success. The problem is how we treat and talk to each other about it. Which isn't too surprising in today's world.

 

[sixty_reefer]

No, unless your personal experience was an incorrect interpretation of what happened in your tank (e.g, maybe it ate things you did not see because it was at night, and only those other things gave it useful nutrition).

You are assuming that in my imaginative analogy I’ve failed. That wasn’t the question.
And we need to take in consideration that there is no truth for that question to date according to science. If there is no truth how can someone deny it.

 

[Thales]

And I agree with Randy, although truth has also changed in our hobby over the years. Not so long ago corals in saltwater aquaria used to be stripped clean of all the flesh before they were added to them, and only used as decoration pieces. That truth many decades after has changed.

That is still current understanding, not truth in the way Randy is using the term.

 

[brandon429]

whats funny about cycling debates is this bias happens on both sides of the fence. even google scholar can't tell us what reef tanks do with nh3 ammonia or how it varies or how it's highly consistent tank to tank, since we're all modeling pretty much the same ratio of water, motion, heat, rocks and bioloading.


all the folks who feel a cycle is broken are just as much guessing as the sole umpire in reefing telling them it's not broken.

and every day that someone buys a new seneye, calibrates it, then uploads what their reef does with nh3 we get the real truth: faster than google scholar could ever relay it to us.

the truth comes from bulk pattern reporting by the masses who employ these ratios and then have a means to accurately measure them, thanks to digital nh3 testing for reef tanks. what one scientist found in a reef tank, or reef tank set, that may be published on google scholar won't help as much as forty thousand seneye posts on what reef cycles do: not stall. they don't stall. Ammonia control is a given after day ten in the cycling arrangements we create

 

[sixty_reefer]

This is just semantics at this point, but I think what Randy is saying is that there is only one truth (one answer to why something happened/happens) regardless of what anyone or anything (science included) says and regardless of whether or not we currently believe it to be true (or even possible).

While science changes, the actual truth stays the same. Science is just our collective understanding of what the truth might be.
For examples:
A bone from a monkey will always be a bone from a monkey - even if science says it's from a bird.
2+2 will always equal 4, even if science says 2+2 equals 3.

In other words, the truth doesn't change, even if our understanding of it (our current "scientific fact") does.

So, when different people get different results with the same product in their tanks, there has to be a reason (and its only possible for there to be one correct reason) for the different results. Sometimes the reason is obvious (person one added 1ml while person two added 1000 ml, for example), and sometimes it's not (person three's water contained more organic nutrients than person four's water did, for example). Sometimes it's simple with one clear cause for the difference, and sometimes it's complicated with a number of different factors (seen or unseen) contributing to the different results. Regardless, there is only one true reason. That reason may follow our current "scientific fact," or it may go against our current "scientific fact" if our current "scientific fact" is actually not "fact" but "fiction" (i.e. if it's actually wrong). If our current "scientific facts" are actually "facts," however, then the results will always align with the "scientific facts" - even if they don't seem to (in which case, there is an unseen factor at play). So, if our science is accurate and we can see all of the factors involved in the different results which people have had, then our science would be able to explain why those results were different.

Determining fact from fiction is sometimes hard, though (as evidenced by changes in our "facts" over time), so our science (our explanation of what the truth may be) changes as more evidence (more seemingly valid support for a different explanation than one that was held previously) arises. The truth (the actual facts), as stated above, do not change even if our science does.

In other words, the truth is the truth regardless of what we humans think it is, and that's never going to change.

I like more how Randy word it as we are discussing all fields of science not just the ones connected to aquaria

I do not consider predictions about things, whether past, present, or future to be the reality/truth. They are just a guess (perhaps we’ll informed, or perhaps not) at what may be the reality of what happened, is happening, or will happen.

I think that is quite clearly distinguishable from actual reality.

As an example, I consider it reality/truth that calcium and carbonate can combine in solution to form calcium carbonate, and I can even identify conditions where it is likely to happen.

But a prediction that it will happen in a future situation is fraught with potential errors for reasons that I may not understand about the situation (such as the unknown presence of calcium chelators preventing it). That future prediction is a guess, not truth/reality.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

That isn't truth, as Randy is using the term, that is current understanding. We may never know the actual truth about a lot of things, but it makes sense to think it is out there.

 

[Soren]

Since we all individually are limited to our own experiences/senses/influences and can never know everything, it seems that the best system is to temper our personal experiences and thoughts with a continued desire for and pursuit of a fuller understanding of the existing reality/truth. This typically brings about a manner of being that can admit lack in understanding while also not counting understanding impossible/unobtainable/unobtained. There is virtue in building one's personal experiences through the continued challenging and pursuit of deeper understanding rather than counting anecdote as proof of truth. (Is this not the scientific method: make a hypothesis, test it in as narrow and controlled a manner as possible, consider results, retest/reconsider hypothesis whenever a counter hypothesis arises or reasonable doubt is cast on results? I'm sure there are better ways this could be worded.)

The truth/reality exists whether or not we/they/you/science/politics/religion/etc. actually understand it and can express it in a communicable language.

This has been stated several times already on this thread, yet some seem to misinterpret what is meant by "truth" in this thread. I ascribe to the mentality that I can never be certain of the "truth" due to my cognitive/sensory limitations, but should still pursue as deep an understanding of what is most likely "true" even if I don't yet fully understand it.

There is a philosophical concept that nothing can be proven to be true, but falsities can be proven. Until all data of every possibly related subject has been acquired through all of time by all possible senses, etc., truth cannot be proven; but that which has not been proven false through all attempts to prove it false is the closest to the truth we can acquire within our human experience.

This relates to the old saying, "The wisest man is the man who understands that he understands nothing." This is not to say that understanding cannot be obtained or that it is a noble pursuit to try not to understand, but rather that the more one thinks one understands, the more one find that one does not know because of new worlds that are opened through the initial "understanding" that one's lack of understanding made one previously blind to.

Also related is the Dunning-Kruger effect: People with very little substantial knowledge on a subject statistically over-estimate how much they know because they do not even know enough about the subject yet to realize how much they do not know.

 

[A Young Reefer]

Holy reefer madness! What happened here?? last time I visited this thread it had like 6 replies.
Guess I will have to read all 14 pages