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

[A_Blind_Reefer]

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_Blind_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

You may need a large supply of an alcoholic beverage of your choosing, and a Costco sized container of excedrin

 

[BirdFish5000]

It's basically the same things being said over and over again, imo

 

[sixty_reefer]

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

It illustrates that once more fields of science are involved it’s complicated to have truth set over stone, the chemistry side of keeping coral is well understood and set in stone although the biology side of the hobby could change in the next few decades fairly easily as the past few decades shown us. Same with astronomy, archeology and other fields of science.

 

[A Young Reefer]

You may need a large supply of an alcoholic beverage of your choosing, and a Costco sized container of excedrin

Too bad I don’t drink, a good ol cup of tea will do!

 

[Soren]

Too bad I don’t drink, a good ol cup of tea will do!

A good dose of shutting off personal emotion and bias while trying to achieve reading comprehension should help, too, maybe even more than the tea!

 

[A Young Reefer]

A good dose of shutting off personal emotion and bias while trying to achieve reading comprehension should help, too, maybe even more than the tea!

 

[Thales]

It illustrates that once more fields of science are involved it’s complicated to have truth set over stone, the chemistry side of keeping coral is well understood and set in stone although the biology side of the hobby could change in the next few decades fairly easily as the past few decades shown us.

This is a foundational observation, that perhaps those of us involved in science don't discuss because it is so foundational. Any field could be turned on its head any time, as could any aspect of reefkeeping. The odds are low in the areas that we are confident about, but it could still change. Nothing is really set in stone in science, just set in stone regarding what we understand right now. Nothing is really 'set over stone' if I am understand what you are meaning by that term - our understanding of much is constantly changing.

 

[alain Bouchard]

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.

looks like we went to same school When you know you know nothing about a subject, its when your mind is the most opened to listening to all different hypothesis, even the most ridiculed . And then you can begin to start learning and understanding that subject. Many people dont go the hard route of learning and understand and just accept what the "majority" repeat.

 

[Garf]

This thread takes me back to being a young squaddie. First aid and survival was important, obviously. The Medic insisted that we lost most of our heat through our head. That was very odd to me as I could clearly go outside in winter without a hat on. When I questioned this I was ridiculed and shown a text book stating the facts. Many years later there was a TV documentary with a top doctor and he reinforced the fact that we did indeed lose most heat through our head. He even gave a reason behind it, the chemical interactions in our brain generated lots of heat and it radiated out.
Many years later someone actually tested the fact, it was false. The human circulatory system is a wonderful thing. It felt like a small win for me and I'll take any win I can get.
I've been trying to find an excuse to tell this story for donkeys years, there, done. Happy Christmas folks

 

[jabberwock]

For ease of the discussion could you clarify for me what field of science are we discussing here? If it’s chemistry I must agree with all you said so far although if it’s biology for example it may be different, I say that as I read many paper and most of of them will finish with a conclusion based on observation and will almost never end with a absolute truth. For example many scientists have thoughts and theories on what a dendronephtya (carnation coral) may eat although there isn’t a absolute truth to it to date.
I ask as I feel that folks may be confusing fields of science although we are in the chemistry forum.

The truth exists regardless of whether or not we know it.

 

[jabberwock]

42!

 

[sixty_reefer]

This is a foundational observation, that perhaps those of us involved in science don't discuss because it is so foundational. Any field could be turned on its head any time, as could any aspect of reefkeeping. The odds are low in the areas that we are confident about, but it could still change. Nothing is really set in stone in science, just set in stone regarding what we understand right now. Nothing is really 'set over stone' if I am understand what you are meaning by that term - our understanding of much is constantly changing.

Engineering is also a great addition to the hobby that is not set in stone. Just a few years back I remember being in a different forum participating on a thread that was titled as “advances that we would like to see in the hobby in the years to come”, I replied, I’d like a machine that could analyse our tank water and correct it also at the same time (something along those lines). I recall my comments being “removed” and criticised for being an absolute ridiculous idea. Apparently not acceptable as truth at the time.
Point of the story not so long ago The Trident was out and available to everyone in the hobby.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

42!

I often wish I could find a babel fish to stick in my ear so that I could understand what’s going on. Especially on reefing forums!

 

[Canadianreefmaster]

Trying to get this thread back to the original focus, let me take a random specific example from Reef2Reef where personal experiences are portrayed in a fashion that seems contrary to established science.
..

Who's Using BW Kalk+2?

I've been using Brightwell Aquatics Kalk+2 as a secondary dosing method on top of my 2 part system. I dose Kalk+2 as a topoff through my kalkreactor, and I must say it has worked very well. I just wanted to get some feedback from other people who are using it.

www.reef2reef.com

a LOT OF the issues on forums, and social media platforms (i group them together because people use different sources) do not have the education (not to be offensive- we are all curious learners! and this is excellent) to understand many complexities of reef biology (in the ocean or in the home tank). It is HARD! and takes many marine chemists and biologist their entire career to understand!
this leads to more opinions, but without the ecological understandings.

I always say that my reef is more complex chemistry than an ICU patient . we dont expect the general public to decide how to treat them . we cant expect the general public to know reefing or how to understand its complex biochemistry.

So validate those reefers experience; even if they are obscure. so they come back to join in discussions. But provide them the resources to understand, or explain tanks act in different ways with different additives, no 2 tanks will act the same. And start a poll (with proper hypothesis) , but apply that to that SINGLE SYSTEM if you're discussing their system. Population versus individual studies.

side note :
I found no point in trying to argue with some reefers that don't have a basic grasp on biology! or accept very basic husbandry, chemsitry etc.... because it gets frustrating, and you watch their tank not do well, when simple changes would fix it. For example, a reefers pH was low causing the coral to dissolve, said pH was stable (yet used a ph indicator test, not a probe) and denied that a diurnal swing was dropping the ph to acidic conditions. for 80% of the day. (he finally did correct pH, coral recovered), this reefer continued many other habits that resulted in loss of coral and fish. I tend to just ignore these posts or threads.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Careful - Google doesn’t show you the “internet” - it shows you a highly personalized, belief-reinforcing version of the internet optimized to make the most profit from you possible. To do this, it’s pulling in data from absolutely everything you do (data sharing agreements across every major corporation and privacy policies allow this to happen, perfectly legally). So if there’s something you believe and Google knows that, it’s highly likely Google will show it to you, accurate or not.

I for one use "Google" as a generic term meaning "searching the internet". That could mean using Google Scholar, CORE, PubMed, ResearchGate, or even regular old Google/chrome, Safari, Edge, IE.

(I suppose using the term (search the internet) vs. the specific browser (Google) would be the best, but I'm from Texas and here, when someone asks you if you want a Coke, the follow up question is "what kind" )

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

@Erin1971Texas

I'm uncertain as to what might be tripping you up here.

My comment was strait forward; that I believe scientific research is more competitive than collaborative. And, I used my example of three different COVID vaccines as an example to illustrate that belief.

Now, the reason for multiple entities researching the same problem has been explained and I agree, has its merits.

So what aren't you understanding?

The fact that you thought 3 vaccines were developed due to greed.

Your exact comment:
"So there's no greed in science? Research is competitive. If it was collaborative, we wouldn't have 3 different COVID vaccines."

 

[Sean Clark]

I for one use "Google" as a generic term meaning "searching the internet". That could mean using Google Scholar, CORE, PubMed, ResearchGate, or even regular old Google/chrome, Safari, Edge, IE.

(I suppose using the term (search the internet) vs. the specific browser (Google) would be the best, but I'm from Texas and here, when someone asks you if you want a Coke, the follow up question is "what kind" )

I'll have a Coke coke thank you.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

I didn’t assume anything. I allowed for the possibility that the interpretation was incorrect. If it is not, then it seems fine, and I don’t see it defying scientific norms.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It illustrates that once more fields of science are involved it’s complicated to have truth set over stone, the chemistry side of keeping coral is well understood and set in stone although the biology side of the hobby could change in the next few decades fairly easily as the past few decades shown us. Same with astronomy, archeology and other fields of science.

Reality and truth are fixed. Our understanding of them is usually limited and often changes as we gain a fuller understanding of it.