Do you feel this is true or false
what major reefing practices do have formal published paper backing?
which ones don’t?
ever seen a Harvard study on Pico reefs? Pls link that if so
one off anecdotes are common, prone to error, completely prone to assessment bias on both ends as the typist and reader try and communicate a best means
but what happens if you can pattern an anecdote in ten thousand reefs, does that inch the meter towards legitimacy or just not until Harvard says so?
so many subjects can be reviewed in this context
using just the lowly pico reef, the formal vs anecdotal breakdown went like this irl:
1. you cannot keep mixed lps and sps in a pico reef, they’ll die due to allelopathy (links ten formal studies proving allelopathy exists and how it kills, from the ocean)
2. a few tiny systems popped up online twenty years ago. The initial response was ‘fake’ or ‘plumbed‘ and then forty reefs arose. Nano-reef.com arose and began patterning out small reefs, were all the hobbyists aligned to lie in pattern, or were they simply reporting alternate findings because the context of study changed?
3. after pico reef #200,471 was posted we can clearly see anecdote beat the pants off slow but highly, highly accurate peer review in at least one niche of reefing.
what about curing dinoflagellates in a reef tank. Any formal peer reviews using reef tanks? I know there are ocean studies galore
but in context and in a home reef tank, Im thinking any Harvard biology teacher who owns a reef tank with a dinos issue is seeking forum pattern anecdote in the matter for their best possible recourse.
Is the wikipedia form of reefing actually better at making discoveries in context than professional writers and researchers?
what major reefing practices do have formal published paper backing?
which ones don’t?
ever seen a Harvard study on Pico reefs? Pls link that if so
one off anecdotes are common, prone to error, completely prone to assessment bias on both ends as the typist and reader try and communicate a best means
but what happens if you can pattern an anecdote in ten thousand reefs, does that inch the meter towards legitimacy or just not until Harvard says so?
so many subjects can be reviewed in this context
using just the lowly pico reef, the formal vs anecdotal breakdown went like this irl:
1. you cannot keep mixed lps and sps in a pico reef, they’ll die due to allelopathy (links ten formal studies proving allelopathy exists and how it kills, from the ocean)
2. a few tiny systems popped up online twenty years ago. The initial response was ‘fake’ or ‘plumbed‘ and then forty reefs arose. Nano-reef.com arose and began patterning out small reefs, were all the hobbyists aligned to lie in pattern, or were they simply reporting alternate findings because the context of study changed?
3. after pico reef #200,471 was posted we can clearly see anecdote beat the pants off slow but highly, highly accurate peer review in at least one niche of reefing.
what about curing dinoflagellates in a reef tank. Any formal peer reviews using reef tanks? I know there are ocean studies galore
but in context and in a home reef tank, Im thinking any Harvard biology teacher who owns a reef tank with a dinos issue is seeking forum pattern anecdote in the matter for their best possible recourse.
Is the wikipedia form of reefing actually better at making discoveries in context than professional writers and researchers?
Last edited: