Are You Rolling with Science or Experience First?

[Rocks reef]

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.

Very well stated!

 

[CHSUB]

hence we run higher nutrients to feed our corals

Some do but some don’t…

 

[Red_Beard]

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

Isnt experience just limited experiments you personally have performed? The contols may not be up to a 'scientific' standard, but if you have done something in which there was an unknown, but expected outcome, that i dare say is the basis of science.

To the broader question in general, could this then not be condensed down into who's experience you are inclined to listen to? 'Science' being the documented experience of people trained to observe and document (NOT the paid for corporate shills with an agenda), vs 'experience' being that very same thing but from laymen with looser controls, broader scope and varied levels of documentation?
Both sets of people are fallible, and results from either party could be misrepresented and or misunderstood. Just because one isnt a scientist doesnt mean their observations are invalid, just a claim to scientific authority does not preclude fallacy.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

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.

Great post.

And I would add that, in the case of our reef aquariums, that science can be very hard to pin down. Ecology is probably the most difficult domain in science to arrive at clean, solid answers and explanations in.

Even in the very partial, incomplete way our reef aquariums are ecosystems, they are so multi-factorial that it’s really difficult to know causality for certain. Designing investigations to test things gets really messy and murky. There are so many interactions…biological, chemical, physical…that it can be really difficult to determine for sure what happened.

Maybe when we are looking at things when they go wrong things are a little more straight-forward. But scientifically determining what went right with certainty? Good luck. Determining causality with that many moving parts is, on the level it’s done in the hobby and industry, really difficult.

Let’s say you want to test the efficacy of Supplement X in aiding coral growth. You could design an experiment with everything controlled that could possibly be controlled. You might even get some really good data showing a strong relationship between Supplement X and coral growth. But as soon as you move out of the controlled environments and into the aquarium, that can all change. You could dump Supplement X into the tank all day, but there are so many other variables now involved in coral growth…many of which cannot be measured or observed…that the coral might still not grow. But Bob in the reef club uses it and his corals get huge! Well…yeah, good luck pinpointing the cause.

 

[jonnywink]

I’ve always heard that experience is the best teacher. And a lot of the time you can see the science behind it, but experience is usually easier to understand.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

Science and what others say are the "best recommendations".

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

Voted!!

 

[Paul B]

Experience 99% of the time and 1% for the rest of the time. Science comes from Scientists and unless that scientist has a thriving reef tank for many years, to me, his opinion doesn't mean much. There are no degrees, no fellowships for fish tanks. Of course, scientists study food fish and water pollution, but no one has a doctorate in Reef tanks. If they do, they probably also have a degree in Beyoncé.

For example, the ich study conducted with Burgess in the 1990s was informative and taught us about the life cycle of ich. "In a laboratory setting". But that doesn't help much in a reef tank as most of us don't keep our fish in a lab.

It also doesn't take into account the immunity or lack of in our fish.

I would always take the advice of someone with experience in the thing I am concerned about even if science counters it.

The Church's "scientists" sentenced Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life for going against the church teachings. He showed them. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:

 

[AlyciaMarie Verified Admin]

This is a hard one! Although both come into play, I feel like I lean slightly more on the experience side.

 

[56longroof]

Experience. Scientific studies get to wordy for me and I get bored real quick.

 

[rhitee93]

This strikes close to home for me. I am a non-academic engineer who works in an academic environment. (No, my name isn't Howard Wolowitz)

Sometimes, to prove a point to someone that never leaves their office, I'll tell them that my empirical data (experience) is more accurate than their theoretical model (science).

However, there is a flaw in that logic. My empirical work will often contain uncontrolled variables that I am unaware of. Just like many people will explain their experience, but be unaware that someone else's experience will vary because of a difference in their systems.

Similarly, much of our scientific knowledge comes from theories that are based on applying scientific laws to simplified models. However, real systems are often more complicated than what our models can fully explain. So, theories also fall victim to uncontrolled variables that we are unaware of.

In the end, you have to have some of both both in order to observe, quantify, hypothesise, test, conclude and continuously improve.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Experience 99% of the time and 1% for the rest of the time. Science comes from Scientists and unless that scientist has a thriving reef tank for many years, to me, his opinion doesn't mean much. There are no degrees, no fellowships for fish tanks. Of course, scientists study food fish and water pollution, but no one has a doctorate in Reef tanks. If they do, they probably also have a degree in Beyoncé.

For example, the ich study conducted with Burgess in the 1990s was informative and taught us about the life cycle of ich. "In a laboratory setting". But that doesn't help much in a reef tank as most of us don't keep our fish in a lab.

It also doesn't take into account the immunity or lack of in our fish.

I would always take the advice of someone with experience in the thing I am concerned about even if science counters it.

The Church's "scientists" sentenced Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life for going against the church teachings. He showed them. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:

Wow, what an extremely narrow view of science that you select to make it easy to mock and belittle it. Science does not mean esoteric papers that are debated even by scientists.

Let's look at the reality that nearly everything reefers do is ultimately based on science, not just "experience". Someone took science, and converted it into a useful idea for reefing. You may often use their experience, but it's generally based on science in its original form. So if most things we do now are based on science, and arise from scientific principles, why think it not a good guide to future improvements?

Tap water can be fine in a reef tank, and can be terrible. You have experienced both. Science can tell reefers in advance of killing corals whether their tap water is OK. Experience cannot.

Science tells us that hard corals need calcium and alkalinity in the water. In a heavily stocked tank with lots of skeletons being produced, they must be added. Trying to figure that out based on "experience" would take huge numbers of randomly added chemicals hoping they made corals thrive. I assume that huge numbers of randomly added chemicals is not the kind of experience you think is desirable.

Science tells us that alkalinity can be added as bicarbonate, carbonate, hydroxide, formate, acetate and many more, and that it cannot be added by ammonia, potassium sulfate, calcium bromide, muriatic acid, sodium chloride, and a huge assortment of others. Science also tells us the important differences between these. Experience in alk additives ALL traces back to science, not to random experience. Sure, someone else used the science to figure out the possibilities, and you can now use their experiences, but it is science that gave the original choices, not experience.

Aside from water changes with natural seawater collected by hand in a hollowed out piece of bamboo, nearly everything reefers do is critically dependent on science having figured out all sorts of things reefers take for granted.

What is in seawater and how would I make an artificial salt mix if I live in Kansas?

How salty should the water be and how should I even determine that?

What range of temperatures are OK, and how do I even measure temperature?

Is light needed? What light? What color? What intensity? How do I even make a light?

How can I keep the water from becoming a smelly, yellow mess? Granular activated carbon? What even is that? Skimming? Not a reefer random experience.

The list is endless.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I love science, and I think science and experience are the same thing. Science just explains how an experience works, but not everyone is open to the (often times) lengthly explanations that the science community gives. And scientists aren’t satisfied with claims that “it just works”. So it boils down to how people learn. Some learn “on paper” by performing calculations and experiments. Others learn by pure trial and error without explanation.

I’m thankful we have people who care to figure out how things work, it’s just that some people aren’t always open to hearing the formal explanation. They may just want the cliff notes, imo.

 

[Paul B]

Wow, what an extremely narrow view of science that you select to make it easy to mock and belittle it.

Randy, I didn't belittle anyone. I said Burgess study was "Informative and taught us about the life cycle of ich". Did it not?. What was belittling about that?

The title of this thread is:

Do You Listen to Science or Experience First?​

To me, that sounds like the op is asking for "opinions". I gave my "opinion".

My opinion is, I would rather follow someone with experience, in other words, someone with a thriving reef tank than a scientist who maybe doesn't even have a tank, just a degree.

I don't have a degree (I am proud of that) but I have a very healthy, immune reef tank that is maybe the oldest tank on any forum. Do you know any scientists that can say that?

Of course, I use science for just about everything, but that was not the original question of this thread.

I would always take the advice of someone with experience in the thing I am concerned about even if science counters it.

I have posted numerous times that I have a cousin who is a professor of marine biology. So he is a scientist. He has never even kept a gold fish and only had to SCUBA dive for a half an hour to complete his degree.

Should I listen to him or someone with a lifetime of successful experience?

My mentor was Robert Straughn because at the time he had more experience than anyone, and he taught me a lot.

Eventually I found out through experience that some of his advice was incorrect so I changed my tactics.

So thats my "opinion" in this thread. :)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Randy, I didn't belittle anyone. I said Burgess study was "Informative and taught us about the life cycle of ich". Did it not?. What was belittling about that?

This statement does not seem belittling of science?

Science comes from Scientists and unless that scientist has a thriving reef tank for many years, to me, his opinion doesn't mean much. There are no degrees, no fellowships for fish tanks. Of course, scientists study food fish and water pollution, but no one has a doctorate in Reef tanks. If they do, they probably also have a degree in Beyoncé.

 

[Paul B]

This statement does not seem belittling of science?

Of course not. I have great respect for scientists. I read everything that Leonardo DaVinci wrote. Galileo also.
Einstein (OK, not a scientist) I am a compulsive reader, mostly of scientific publications.
I subscribe to Scientific American, Discover and a few others.

But none of them have a degree in reef tanks.

Steven Hawking, another one. I am close friends with two of the top Neurologists who take me to medical talks which I go to if they are about immunity, drugs or new technologies, especially anything about MS treatments such as stem cells. I am going to see one of them today.

I also have two patents and wrote two books with no college. One book and one patent associated with reef tanks. I am not a genius but I live for science.

But I would still take advice from someone with years of experience than any of them if we are "talking about reef tanks" what this thread is about. "Opinions" about reef tanks. Not if we have respect for scientists.

 

[IceNein]

I am a very pro science person, but I did put experience.

What I actually look for is consensus. Sometimes people misinterpret "science." Sometimes things that work have not been studied. A marine biologist may be totally disinterested in how things work in an aquarium, so when they do studies, they may not really be applicable, or someone may try to force them to be applicable.

But you also have to watch out for experience because there are a hundred things you need to do to maintain an aquarium, and if you get 99 right and one wrong, you could have a beautiful tank, but on that one subject you are wrong.

 

[ChrisfromBrick]

experience is great but those of us that on “learn to reef” do so from the very science that gets you there. Any one of us can spew out what parameters, chemical interactions, and other knowledge that gets us a nice reef. However, I have a great appreciation for the folks that are scientists and can explain the process behind WHY something is happening on a molecular level (though much of it goes over my head).

I guess i’m just biased because my father is a chemist and I find it really impressive what science accomplishes. Not to mention some folks here that do the same. I work in the medical field, and the very methods that doctors use to deliver care comes from the clinical trials that are run via the scientific method as all science projects do.

That said, I have equal respect for people that don’t understand science the same as a chemist or marine biologist for example, but use trial and error to see what works (which is science!)

 

[ChrisfromBrick]

Of course not. I have great respect for scientists. I read everything that Leonardo DaVinci wrote. Galileo also.
Einstein (OK, not a scientist) I am a compulsive reader, mostly of scientific publications.
I subscribe to Scientific American, Discover and a few others.

But none of them have a degree in reef tanks.

Steven Hawking, another one. I am close friends with two of the top Neurologists who take me to medical talks which I go to if they are about immunity, drugs or new technologies, especially anything about MS treatments such as stem cells. I am going to see one of them today.

I also have two patents and wrote two books with no college. One book and one patent associated with reef tanks. I am not a genius but I live for science.

But I would still take advice from someone with years of experience than any of them if we are "talking about reef tanks" what this thread is about. "Opinions" about reef tanks. Not if we have respect for scientists.

you make a good point. Unless you run some type of scientific project on reefs and have publications, it’s hard to apply your credentials to a reef tank, with the exception of understanding how one molecule may interact with another, for example.

 

[billyocean]

I feel like the experience is inherently trusting the science even if you dont understand the science. If were talking experience over a scientist...thats a different thought.