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

[sixty_reefer]

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.

I see your point and absolutely agree.

 

[Mark Gray]

This is very true I am also somewhat narrow minded, but I like to learn and like when new things come out and change old things. My father had polio spent 9 months in an iron lung, this is one that is not cured but could be eliminated with vaccine use. Cancer is a very complicated disease, same with diabetes. I have seen not cured your right but huge treatment improvements. Paul you have me by a few years but not to many. I would love to know the name of the MS drug your wife is on, my close friends son is severely affected with MS. Personal experience and learning are all part of this hobby, I maybe look at reviews far to much, for instance reveiws on Radion lights I absolutely hate them. And in different circumstances results can be different.

Actually Randy I don't think so (but many of my anecdotes are ludicrous)

I love science and it was my favorite subject. I am a compulsive reader and read mostly science books and magazines. Marine biology, astronomy, physics, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy etc.
I really like science fiction but can separate the two.

I said many times you are probably the smartest guy on these forums. It is not scientists I feel have a narrow view. It's the companies that pay them. Scientists and medical researchers are doing a job and normally working for a company that makes money for producing a product. They don't make money studying things for no reason.

You are a chemist. Does someone pay you to study certain things or can you work on whatever you like?

If the researcher is working for a tuna company like Starkist, they are studying only tuna and only to farm the fish to make it grow faster and fatter. They don't have to look into if the tuna lives to it's natural lifespan or spawns. The company needs to make money so they pay the guys to work on just those issues. They won't research squid.

I brought up MS researchers because my wife has it so we have been invited to neurologist conferences all the time for the last 25 years. They work for pharmaceutical companies which arguably make a lot of money.

My wife gives herself a shot monthly which costs about $16,000.00 for each shot. The company that produces that shot makes a lot of money and they don't even know how or why the shot works. They just know that in tests the people taking that shot go longer without an exacerbation than control people. Thats great but there are a dozen or so companies making similar "vaccines" and none of them know how or why it works and none of them work very well.

Thats fine as long as it slows the progression. But none of those companies or scientists are seeing if combining those therapies would be beneficial because that would be a conflict of interest so who would pay for it? Mobil doesn't work with Exxon to find a gas that gives better mileage or smell better.

Few companies or researchers are searching for a cure either as cures stop companies from making money. Look at all the cancer treatments, but have you ever seen it cured? We don't cure it, we cut off the part of the body that is cancerous and sometimes we need those parts.

I can't think of one disease that has been "cured" in my lifetime, and I am going to be 74 Christmas. (Cured, not slowed or caused disfigurement)

So, to me anyway, much science research is like tunnel vision and I can see where it has to be because of a profit margin.

To get back to this thread I said I rely on experience more than science because experience of a layman, not someone getting paid for this is unlimited and can go in many directions with no restrictions from anyone paying us. Scientists are doing a job for a company and that company expects profits, not "interesting" facts so we need to learn from many different scientists studying different things related to (in our case) fish.

So yes of course we need scientists. We would not have planes, space shuttles, medicines or many other things without them.

Galileo was a scientist but worked on his own from his own curiosity to come up with devices that would make him and his family money. No one paid him to research so he came up with numerous inventions.
He studied speed, inertia, velocity, free fall, pendulums, hydrostatic balances, etc. And he invented the thermoscope, telescope, military compases and a variety of other non related things.

So scientists of his time had no restrictions as scientists working for companies today have.
So, yes, I stand by what I posted above. But I still love you Randy even though we disagree on almost everything.

I am good friends with Humblefish and we also disagree on almost everything.

It doesn't make us wrong, just different.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

I don't see this comment as any evidence that reality/truth changes with time.

I'm not sure what exactly happened in your post and where and when, but it would never have been accuratet to claim such a thing was not possible, and since the invention of computers, it has always been attainable to have a device that does what you claim. Autotitrators have long been used in chemistry labs. They were just more expensive than hobbyists would want to spend. Coupling them to a dosing method is not much of a stretch.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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).

Yes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

Really? You didn't know from somewhere that corals need light? calcium? Alkalinity? sources of nutrients?

It may sound ridiculous, but some of those were hard won bits of information determined by the failures of early reefers.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Almost any product can kill corals if used wrong, for example being overdosed. The first question would be, how was it used?

But this is not the point I want to make. The headline was "Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth". What do I read in this headline?

Relying on personal experience usually means, "this complies with my personal experience or it does not". Yes or no, right or wrong. This is the personal approach.

What in my eyes differs most in the scientific approach is, that it is not about right or wrong first hand. Science is a method or a tool that is searching for the perfect explanation. Usually it is a approximation to the perfect explanation. Since science goes on, the approximation is getting closer and closer to perfection. What is important, is that usually better explanations are based on other, good explanations.

So the scientific approach would be, "maybe, but how can it be explained?". ... at least this is how I understand it. And here it differs from the personal experience. Personal experience is descriptive in a different way. It is not based on other, already very sophisticated descriptions, as science is. And science has more advanced tools none of us aquarium hobbyists or professionals can use.

For example science can get out whether in a certain constellation an enzyme is induced or inhibited and in this way makes a biochemical reaction possible or blocks it. None of us does, I think.

For example uptake of nutrients is also a kind of enzymatic reaction and uptake follows certain kinetics. Science can explain the kinetics with half saturation constants etc.. Science can explain which uptake mechanisms are induced and which ones are permanent.

For example science can follow chemical reactions that take place in the ground, using special probes.

Nearly everyone today has access to scientific knowledge, for example by using a google scholar search. With this scientific background knowledge you can try to find an explanation of personal experience that is maybe far from perfect but maybe good or at least better than previous explanations. In this way personal experience remains not merely "right or wrong", but may get an explanation why it worked the way it worked (or didn't). And maybe the best is, using this tool is not limited to scientists anymore. Everyone can at least try to find a better explanation, and a lot of people here try ...

And while scientists are getting better in keeping corals, hobbyists and aquarium professionals are getting better in searching for explanations. This is a competition both sides benefit.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my main concern is the conclusions that folks may make from personal experience that are actually wrong, because they didn't understand the underlying mechanisms and complexities of what they observed.

None of us understand all the important mechanisms, and so we all make wrong conclusions. I know I have many times. But I think a proportion of such mistakes would be reduced by checking to see if it conflicts with generally accepted scientific principles, and if it does, looking more closely to see if the conclusion is really justified by the observation.

 

[Hans-Werner]

None of us understand all the important mechanisms, and so we all make wrong conclusions.

Yes, the deeper you go the less sharp the image will get. But I agree, conclusion should never be contradictory to accepted knowledge and principles. I also completely understand your examples from medicine.

Sometimes even "accepted knowledge" may have to be revised but this is quite rarely the case and even more rarely from outside of the "scientific community".

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't see this comment as any evidence that reality/truth changes with time.

I'm not sure what exactly happened in your post and where and when, but it would never have been accuratet to claim such a thing was not possible, and since the invention of computers, it has always been attainable to have a device that does what you claim. Autotitrators have long been used in chemistry labs. They were just more expensive than hobbyists would want to spend. Coupling them to a dosing method is not much of a stretch.

It was a side not that illustrate how some truth change and that some knowledge is qualified as current knowledge and not the truth based on science.

I can give an example.

The current ideology that low nutrient can cause folks dinoflagellates is not based on scientific knowledge, it’s just the current “truth” based on observations and experiences from folks in the hobby.
if a certain aquarists rejects that idea, he or she wouldn’t be denying science, just rejecting a ideology made by other aquarists.
Due to that statement being so often repeated by many influential aquarist most will believe that to be a scientific truth.

I believe more examples could be made of events were folks could have a different opinion of the acceptable current truth without rejecting science.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It was a side not that illustrate how some truth change and that some knowledge is qualified as current knowledge and not the truth based on science.

I can give an example.

The current ideology that low nutrient can cause folks dinoflagellates is not based on scientific knowledge, it’s just the current “truth” based on observations and experiences from folks in the hobby.
if a certain aquarists rejects that idea, he or she wouldn’t be denying science, just rejecting a ideology made by other aquarists.
Due to that statement being so often repeated by many influential aquarist most will believe that to be a scientific truth.

I don't believe any of those are underlying truths and they certainly are not generally accepted scientific reality.

They are ideas with some data to support them, and some merit in solving some situations. But since there are plenty of existing counterexamples, the underlying truth is not nearly so simple. Maybe someday we will know it, and have a list of 37,000 risk factors for dinos and the relative importance of each, but for now, there is no generally accepted scientific consensus of what leads to all dino problems in reef tanks.

 

[92Miata]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my main concern is the conclusions that folks may make from personal experience that are actually wrong, because they didn't understand the underlying mechanisms and complexities of what they observed.

I think this dovetails with the Quantitative Fallacy/McNamara Fallacy - where people overly rely on metrics, and are unable to conceptualize that there are other things going on than what they can measure.

How many times do we see the argument "I keep Acros and I have 0.00 phosphates - his can't be starving at .02" - with absolutely no understanding that phosphorus is present in all sorts of other forms in a system and we can only measure the small percentage that is inorganic phosphate in the water column.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't believe any of those are underlying truths and they certainly are not generally accepted scientific reality.

They are ideas with some data to support them, and some merit in solving some situations. But since there are plenty of existing counterexamples, the underlying truth is not nearly so simple. Maybe someday we will know it, and have a list of 37,000 risk factors for dinos and the relative importance of each, but for now, there is no generally accepted scientific consensus of what leads to all dino problems in reef tanks.

It’s an example of a common accepted truth that is not based on science.
I think we will need some more good examples from you of folks denying science to take this conversation further, I can’t think of many at the moment. All I've seen so far on this thread is aquarist misinterpretation of scientific truth with common aquarist truths with the exception of the example you have shared earlier on the thread.

Would folks using redfield (mentioned earlier in the thread) as guide to set residual nitrates and phosphates an example of a aquarists rejecting science? To my understanding there isn’t an ideal residual based on scientific knowledge either and if it falls within acceptable ranges, I can’t see it how those aquarists would be rejecting science.

 

[92Miata]

The current ideology that low nutrient can cause folks dinoflagellates is not based on scientific knowledge, it’s just the current “truth” based on observations and experiences from folks in the hobby.
if a certain aquarists rejects that idea, he or she wouldn’t be denying science, just rejecting a ideology made by other aquarists.
Due to that statement being so often repeated by many influential aquarist most will believe that to be a scientific truth.

I believe more examples could be made of events were folks could have a different opinion of the acceptable current truth without rejecting science.

I'm not sure I agree with this - documenting observations is absolutely a part of science - and is absolutely evidence. Low Nutrients and Low Biodiversity/Biomass -> Dinos is a reasonable hypothesis with an understandable method of action, lots of flawed but reasonable testing, seems to respond in a predictable manner, etc. Would it be better if we had controlled studies? Absolutely - but the hypothesis is absolutely based on science, and is currently the best data we have. Science is not about having perfect data - it's about making sure we're using the best data we have, and making the best deductions from that data that we can, and understanding that new data can change things. Right now, given that, prolonged periods of low nutrients in newer reefs absolutely seems to be a risk factor for dinoflagellates.


The redfield stuff? That's straight up pseudoscience. There's no reasonable method of action, or evidence at this point that it's relevant to reefing - especially given that the ratio of C:N found in typical near-shore reef systems doesn't match the redfield ratio at all (which is about deep water open ocean plankton)

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm not sure I agree with this - documenting observations is absolutely a part of science - and is absolutely evidence. Low Nutrients and Low Biodiversity/Biomass -> Dinos is a reasonable hypothesis with an understandable method of action, lots of flawed but reasonable testing, seems to respond in a predictable manner, etc. Would it be better if we had controlled studies? Absolutely - but the hypothesis is absolutely based on science, and is currently the best data we have. Science is not about having perfect data - it's about making sure we're using the best data we have, and making the best deductions from that data that we can, and understanding that new data can change things. Right now, given that, prolonged periods of low nutrients in newer reefs absolutely seems to be a risk factor for dinoflagellates.

there isn’t any scientific paper or study that supports that to be the cause. Meaning that rejecting the theory is not rejecting science as per thread discussion and title

The redfield stuff? That's straight up pseudoscience. There's no reasonable method of action, or evidence at this point that it's relevant to reefing - especially given that the ratio of C:N found in typical near-shore reef systems doesn't match the redfield ratio at all (which is about deep water open ocean plankton)

This thread is titled “Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth”

Implementation of the redfield ratio would fall as the misinterpretation of science not rejecting science as it’s what’s being discussed here.

 

[92Miata]

there isn’t any scientific paper or study that supports that to be the cause. Meaning that rejecting the theory is not rejecting science as per thread discussion and title

"Science" is much wider than scientific papers and studies - and papers and studies regarding marine aquariums are almost non-existent, and many papers and studies done in open water are minimally relevant to marine aquariums. So we use the evidence that exists. Some of that is papers, some of that is personal observation, some of that is population study.

"Science" is a method for determining truth, not a collection of papers.


Also, you're absolutely wrong. There is a significant amount of scientific study regarding temperature and N ratios and levels, and how they affect the interplay of diatoms and dinoflaggelates in marine environments.


Dinoflagellates had the competitive superiority (α > 0) under low nutrient concentrations, but diatoms had the competitive superiority (α < 0) under high nutrient concentrations (Figure 2). The interaction coefficient α responded significantly to nutrient concentration changes (GLMMs; Table 3), showing a decrease as nutrient concentrations increased (Figure 2), while its responses to temperature and N supply ratios were not significant.

From:

Responses of Marine Diatom-Dinoflagellate Competition to Multiple Environmental Drivers: Abundance, Elemental, and Biochemical Aspects​

These findings sup-port universal recognition of diatom–dinoflagellate interspecific competition under P-de-
ficient conditions, but they are different from the outcomes of the competition between dia-
toms and dinoflagellates of previous studies under P-sufficient conditions, especially when
DIP and DOP coexist, suggesting that different P sources play a critical role in the interspecific
competition between diatoms and dinoflagellates

From:

Responses of Marine Diatom–Dinoflagellate Interspecific Competition to Different Phosphorus Sources​

​

​

​

Do we have conclusive evidence that low nutrients cause dinoflagellate problems? No. Is it the only risk factor? Probably not. But the hypothesis is absolutely scientifically supported, and evidence based. ​

 

[ReefGeezer]

Dinoflagellates had the competitive superiority...

Is it just me, or is the difficulty with interpreting scientific studies buried in the details? For example, I believe there are a lot of dinoflagellates & not all are pests. Would it be fair to think that what applied to the subjects of this study might not apply to all?

 

[sixty_reefer]

"Science" is much wider than scientific papers and studies - and papers and studies regarding marine aquariums are almost non-existent, and many papers and studies done in open water are minimally relevant to marine aquariums. So we use the evidence that exists. Some of that is papers, some of that is personal observation, some of that is population study.

"Science" is a method for determining truth, not a collection of papers.


Also, you're absolutely wrong. There is a significant amount of scientific study regarding temperature and N ratios and levels, and how they affect the interplay of diatoms and dinoflaggelates in marine environments.


Dinoflagellates had the competitive superiority (α > 0) under low nutrient concentrations, but diatoms had the competitive superiority (α < 0) under high nutrient concentrations (Figure 2). The interaction coefficient α responded significantly to nutrient concentration changes (GLMMs; Table 3), showing a decrease as nutrient concentrations increased (Figure 2), while its responses to temperature and N supply ratios were not significant.

From:

Responses of Marine Diatom-Dinoflagellate Competition to Multiple Environmental Drivers: Abundance, Elemental, and Biochemical Aspects​

These findings sup-port universal recognition of diatom–dinoflagellate interspecific competition under P-de-
ficient conditions, but they are different from the outcomes of the competition between dia-
toms and dinoflagellates of previous studies under P-sufficient conditions, especially when
DIP and DOP coexist, suggesting that different P sources play a critical role in the interspecific
competition between diatoms and dinoflagellates

From:

Responses of Marine Diatom–Dinoflagellate Interspecific Competition to Different Phosphorus Sources​

​

​

​

Do we have conclusive evidence that low nutrients cause dinoflagellate problems? No. Is it the only risk factor? Probably not. But the hypothesis is absolutely scientifically supported, and evidence based. ​

There is many hypotheses on what could make dinoflagellates bloom in aquaria, for this thread it was concluded that none of them could be considered a scientific truth to be able to be considered rejecting science.
If a aquarist rejects the ideology that low nutrients cause dinoflagellates all he or she is doing is rejecting a common truth made by aquarists that by Randy definition is not the same as a scientific truth.

It was a side not that illustrate how some truth change and that some knowledge is qualified as current knowledge and not the truth based on science.

I can give an example.

The current ideology that low nutrient can cause folks dinoflagellates is not based on scientific knowledge, it’s just the current “truth” based on observations and experiences from folks in the hobby.
if a certain aquarists rejects that idea, he or she wouldn’t be denying science, just rejecting a ideology made by other aquarists.
Due to that statement being so often repeated by many influential aquarist most will believe that to be a scientific truth.

I believe more examples could be made of events were folks could have a different opinion of the acceptable current truth without rejecting science.

I don't believe any of those are underlying truths and they certainly are not generally accepted scientific reality.

They are ideas with some data to support them, and some merit in solving some situations. But since there are plenty of existing counterexamples, the underlying truth is not nearly so simple. Maybe someday we will know it, and have a list of 37,000 risk factors for dinos and the relative importance of each, but for now, there is no generally accepted scientific consensus of what leads to all dino problems in reef tanks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It’s an example of a common accepted truth that is not based on science.
I think we will need some more good examples from you of folks denying science to take this conversation further, I can’t think of many at the moment

Certainly I can give examples of what I mean.

You are, IMO, confusing ideas that may be widely accepted by hobbyists (whether they are true or not) with generally accepted science facts.

Here's the sort of experiences I mean, which conflict with generally accepted science facts, even though the rerefer doesn't know it.

1. Question: Is it OK to use tap water in a reef tank?

Answer 1: Yes. I used it for 20 years with no problems. Don't be swayed by scare mongers that say you cannot.
Answer 2. No. I tried it and my tank was a disaster. Got an RO/DI and everything was fine.

Both answers, IMO, are inappropriate extrapolations from personal experiences. Science reality (based on published water company measurements) shows some tap water is fine and some is not.

2. Question: Calcium and alk are stable in my tank, even with no dosing, but magnesium is declining. It was 1400 ppm when I started the tank a month ago, and is 1300 ppm now. What should I add to boost it back?

Answer: I used ESV magnesium and it worked great.

That answer is inappropriately extrapolating from his own experience where magnesium presumably was being consumed, to this new tank where that is not the situation. The science of magnesium in seawater does not generally allow for consumption of 100 ppm without huge consumption of alk and calcium.

3. Can I dose kalkwasser based on pH without getting alkalinity higher than 10 dKH?

Answer: Sure. I do it it my tank. The pH gets to about 8.3 and the alk stays around 8 dKH.

That answer is inappropriately extrapolating from his own experience where kalkwasser addition ends up working well, to a tank where the alk and calcium demand and CO2 in the air and water may be very different.

4. I have low pH. I saw a Brightwell product (Boost pH +) at the LFS that claims to boost pH. Does that product boost alkalinity?

Answer: No, it won't. Brightwell says "Boost pH+ High Range pH Increaser, raises pH only without increasing alkalinity or calcium (in tanks already having a proper dKH)"

That answer is inappropriately relying on a manufacturer claim that is counter to established science that hydroxide adds alkalinity to seawater.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Certainly I can give examples of what I mean.

You are, IMO, confusing ideas that may be widely accepted by hobbyists (whether they are true or not) with generally accepted science facts.

Thank you for the clarification and the examples, I wouldn’t describe some of my questions as confusing, they just illustrate that this zombie thread may have been awaken without fully understanding the title and not understanding the difference between scientific truth and aquarists theory’s that may not be accepted by all due to not having a scientific truth connected to them.
It’s important to clarify the difference imo for a more substantial conversation of the subject at hand, unfortunately my understanding of chemistry is limited and I wouldn’t be able to contribute further

 

[92Miata]

There is many hypotheses on what could make dinoflagellates bloom in aquaria, for this thread it was concluded that none of them could be considered a scientific truth to be able to be considered rejecting science.
If a aquarist rejects the ideology that low nutrients cause dinoflagellates all he or she is doing is rejecting a common truth made by aquarists that by Randy definition is not the same as a scientific truth.

What?

Like I referenced - there is ample scientific evidence that dinoflagellates - and specifically the ones that are common problems in reef tanks - have competitive advantage in low phosphorus environments. This is not "a common truth made by aquarists".

I don't think your definition of science matches the commonly accepted one - as your argument here doesn't make a lot of sense - and you're making a lot of statements that are categorically false.

Is it just me, or is the difficulty with interpreting scientific studies buried in the details? For example, I believe there are a lot of dinoflagellates & not all are pests. Would it be fair to think that what applied to the subjects of this study might not apply to all?

Sure - but both studies used prorocentrum species which are aquarium and coral pests, and similar studies have been done across several genuses, and apply to most of the dinoflaggelates that are observed as problems in reef tanks. There's also been significant study showing that these same dinoflaggelates are significantly more toxic in P-deficient conditions.

We know that Amphidinium and Ostreopsis (both aquarium pests) can continue photosynthesizing while in P-deficient conditions while most other photosynthetic organisms cannot because the lack of phosphorus breaks the electron transport chain.

This is just such a weird thing to harp on - if the relationship between low nutrients and pest dinoflagellates doesn't meet your criteria for science - almost nothing in the context of reef aquaria does - beyond the simple mechanics of alkalinity, salinity, etc.

It's just an awful example for "aquarium things that aren't backed by science".

 

[ReefGeezer]

What?

Like I referenced - there is ample scientific evidence that dinoflagellates - and specifically the ones that are common problems in reef tanks - have competitive advantage in low phosphorus environments. This is not "a common truth made by aquarists".

I don't think your definition of science matches the commonly accepted one - as your argument here doesn't make a lot of sense - and you're making a lot of statements that are categorically false.


Sure - but both studies used prorocentrum species which are aquarium and coral pests, and similar studies have been done across several genuses, and apply to most of the dinoflaggelates that are observed as problems in reef tanks. There's also been significant study showing that these same dinoflaggelates are significantly more toxic in P-deficient conditions.

We know that Amphidinium and Ostreopsis (both aquarium pests) can continue photosynthesizing while in P-deficient conditions while most other photosynthetic organisms cannot because the lack of phosphorus breaks the electron transport chain.

This is just such a weird thing to harp on - if the relationship between low nutrients and pest dinoflagellates doesn't meet your criteria for science - almost nothing in the context of reef aquaria does - beyond the simple mechanics of alkalinity, salinity, etc.

It's just an awful example for "aquarium things that aren't backed by science".

I didn't think I defining science or harping on anything. I was posing a question, poorly posed I guess, about laymen trying to understand papers written by scientists for the their peers.