Are You Rolling with Science or Experience First?

[Reefer Matt]

When getting advice and trying out new things for your reef, do you listen to the science first, or the experience of other Reefers (if they differ)? Of course in a perfect world we want both, but pretend you don’t have that option.

You’d be surprised at how often things on paper don’t work out in the real world. But can you count on someone else’s experience to help guide yours?

 

[Rocks reef]

I would rather go with experience from a reefer who has been at it for a while. Say, 5 years or more. That way they have worked things out, may have a new hack, new way of doing something or just some great basic knowledge to share.

 

[rtparty]

Yes.

My opinion is experiences can be explained by the science but sometimes you have to find all the science puzzle pieces to explain it.

Often times when the science doesn’t pan out to real world, it’s simply because there are missing pieces or variables in the science.

 

[Red_Beard]

Option 3, the scientific method.
Theory, backed by experience!
But really though, isnt that what 'science' is all about? Coming up with an idea and then testing it? I think there are too many that would argue that science is settled, but i would argue that it never will be and should never be. We have currently just the best working theory on any given subject/situation. Putting puzzle pieces together the best we can.

 

[Rocks reef]

I agree @rtparty
Sometimes the science seems spot on when reading it, however, putting it into practice may not add up due to possibly missing one crucial variable in the equation.

 

[Tahoe61]

RHF.

I sure never would have tried Ammonium Chloride without reading his posts and instructions.
Don't measure Magnesium or dose it any longer.
I have gotten a ton of information from his threads.
Very few people or examples I trust. There's a lot of good lighting advisors on R2R as well.

 

[exnisstech]

I use some of both. Science for sure when it comes to dosing, products, calculations and such .
Ive had things happen that a science says can't happen so I guess it never really happened and I just made it up :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:

 

[Entity77]

Science first. It eventually answers the questions of why things work. Ideally we should do things because we know why rather than "it worked for me."

 

[Reefer Matt]

Before I get hammered, assume the “science” is proven in theory, just not in your tank. Where the “experience” is proven in another Reefer’s tank, but they can’t fully explain how and why it works. It just does.

 

[BryanM]

Experience. I certainly appreciate the science behind a lot of our reefing, but experience is king.

I think science in our world is trying to dictate that 3-5 Nitrates and .03-.06 phos needs to be maintained.

We've actively proven that is not the case however, and I do not think anyone knows why, even though natural sea water falls in to this gold standard range.

Experience, from trusted sources, FTW.

 

[CHSUB]

Experience and observation is wrong more than it is right….

 

[Pridedcloth3]

Science relies on everything being one way. We all know that things never stay that way. My best acropora growth last year was when my trident started acting crazy and my alk was really at 16 dkh.

 

[Reefer Matt]

For me, I look to experience first. However, I always want to know the “why” in everything. But I can apply a practice first, and learn how it works later. For example, I don’t read scientific journals about ocean biology and think, “Hmm, I’m gonna try that in my tank!”. But we all think differently, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. I have a mechanical mindset, so I can see the physics around me. But I can’t always explain the “how” and “why”. I just gotta connect those dots later sometimes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Before I get hammered, assume the “science” is proven in theory, just not in your tank. Where the “experience” is proven in another Reefer’s tank, but they can’t fully explain how and why it works. It just does.

I think that such scenarios are rare.

Far more often, reefers misunderstand what science says, or the tank effect was reflecting something not in the “science” part of the discussion.

There are many cases where reefers and reefing companies misunderstand science and the scientific method. There are active threads where this is true, and there are reef company products that try to wrap themselves in the mantel of science, while actually getting it wrong.

One root of the problem from the reefer perspective is when something is done in a great reef tank, people may think that means that every action in that tank is proven beneficial, when in reality it is often unclear if the tank is great because of that action, or is still great in spite of a suboptimal action taking place.

Moreover, if misunderstanding of that action leads to it being misapplied in a different tank, something that was beneficial may become problematic for reasons the aquarist never expected or understood.

That is why I often challenge claims that people and companies make about “why” something happened. Because that misunderstanding can lead to problems that might not arise if it was presented merely as an observation without trying to explain it.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I think that such scenarios are rare.

Far more often, reefers misunderstand what science says, or the tank effect was reflecting something not in the “science” part of the discussion.

There are many cases where reefers and reefing companies misunderstand science and the scientific method. There are active threads where this is true, and there are reef company products that try to wrap themselves in the mantel of science, while actually getting it wrong.

One root of the problem from the reefer perspective is when something is done in a great reef tank, people may think that means that every action in that tank is proven beneficial, when in reality it is often unclear if the tank is great because of that action, or is still great in spite of a suboptimal action taking place.

Moreover, if misunderstanding of that action leads to it being misapplied in a different tank, something that was beneficial may become problematic for reasons the aquarist never expected or understood.

That is why I often challenge claims that people and companies make about “why” something happened. Because that misunderstanding can lead to problems that might not arise if it was presented merely as an observation without trying to explain it.

I agree. And I know that science can explain most of what goes on in our tanks. I was just trying to see what types of personalities are out there regarding getting advice. Some wanna hear something “official”, and some wanna hear something from their peers first. Science is both, but not everyone is open to hearing it first.

I have learned (especially from you and R2R) to be very careful in my wording when giving advice.
Instead of saying “This worked because of X”, I say “This is what I did, and it worked (or didn’t) for my tank, your results may vary.”

 

[MnFish1]

When getting advice and trying out new things for your reef, do you listen to the science first, or the experience of other Reefers (if they differ)? Of course in a perfect world we want both, but pretend you don’t have that option.

You’d be surprised at how often things on paper don’t work out in the real world. But can you count on someone else’s experience to help guide yours?

Experience is more important - simply because scientific experiements are sparse, and many of the conditions in the experiment may not match the conditions in another tank - thus -difficult to determine the relevance. Now - it also depends on what you mean - if you mean should you know the science of pH and alkalinity - yes. If you're talking about the science behind quarantine or the microbiome - I would go with experience

 

[Reefer Matt]

Experience is more important - simply because scientific experiements are sparse, and many of the conditions in the experiment may not match the conditions in another tank - thus -difficult to determine the relevance. Now - it also depends on what you mean - if you mean should you know the science of pH and alkalinity - yes. If you're talking about the science behind quarantine or the microbiome - I would go with experience

Not what you should know, but which do you let guide your decisions first. For example, a fact based scientific journal, or empirical wisdom of an experienced Reefer?

 

[CHSUB]

Experience is based on observation and observation is unreliable. There are many examples in the hobby of, “I did ‘this’ and that happened.” Look at the QT thread, I’m following the science and not the experience. There is this too….
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness

 

[Rocks reef]

RHF.

I sure never would have tried Ammonium Chloride without reading his posts and instructions.
Don't measure Magnesium or dose it any longer.
I have gotten a ton of information from his threads.
Very few people or examples I trust. There's a lot of good lighting advisors on R2R as well.

@Randy Holmes-Farley is one of the best!

 

[Rocks reef]

Experience. I certainly appreciate the science behind a lot of our reefing, but experience is king.

I think science in our world is trying to dictate that 3-5 Nitrates and .03-.06 phos needs to be maintained.

We've actively proven that is not the case however, and I do not think anyone knows why, even though natural sea water falls in to this gold standard range.

Experience, from trusted sources, FTW.

Actually, NO3 and PO4 in natural seawater is extremely low. Almost undetectable if I remember right. However, the ocean has a constant supply of phyto to make up for it. Most reef tanks do not have a constant supply of phyto, hence we run higher nutrients to feed our corals.