Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

Cool photo, whatever it is!

Thank you. It only took me about five minutes after getting home to find this one. There are plenty more similar examples in the samples.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Of course confirmation bias is possible. That’s why I’m sharing observations rather than claiming I’ve scientifically identified everything. I’ve watched these amoeba like organisms engulf what appears to be filamentous cyanobacteria and found similar material inside them. “Having a feast” is hardly intended as a scientific conclusion. Maybe “eating spaghetti” would have been the more scientific description.

This looks like the same pattern that opened the prior microscopy thread. Hedged language wrapped around claims that stretch beyond observation. "Matches what I am reading" can't support anything if the ID itself is still open.

Directly: if the ID is genuinely open, "amoeba like" and not "amoeba," then literature on amoeba grazing behavior can't be used to support what these organisms are doing. That exposes everything that follows as unsupported explanations (claims) beyond observation.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Each post cites the last one's claim as ground to build the next, giving the whole stack the impression of being settled. These are stacked claims, not observations. You can't support them and just admitted you both don't have an ID (or IDs) and are likely practicing confirmation bias, but haven't retracted anything after the admission, and instead used both as a hedge. Supporting them isn't claiming you didn't make a "scientific conclusion" and adding in more hedge language, which is what your answer is.

You don't have IDs. You can't determine gut content. You can't differentiate eating from proximity. You can't determine if something is too full to eat. All of it rests on a hedge, and on a literature match that can't hold, because the ID it depends on was never established.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This looks like the same pattern that opened the prior microscopy thread. Hedged language wrapped around claims that stretch beyond observation. "Matches what I am reading" can't support anything if the ID itself is still open.

Directly: if the ID is genuinely open, "amoeba like" and not "amoeba," then literature on amoeba grazing behavior can't be used to support what these organisms are doing. That exposes everything that follows as unsupported explanations (claims) beyond observation.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Each post cites the last one's claim as ground to build the next, giving the whole stack the impression of being settled. These are stacked claims, not observations. You can't support them and just admitted you both don't have an ID (or IDs) and are likely practicing confirmation bias, but haven't retracted anything after the admission, and instead used both as a hedge. Supporting them isn't claiming you didn't make a "scientific conclusion" and adding in more hedge language, which is what your answer is.

You don't have IDs. You can't determine gut content. You can't differentiate eating from proximity. You can't determine if one is too full to eat, etc, and back by a hedge and mentioning it matches literature that can't match because the ID doesn't match.

Are you performing crowd corrections or crowd reinforcement? So that we are on the same page.

FYI I’m actually claiming that they are eating the Cyanobacteria. So what?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Are you performing crowd corrections or crowd reinforcement? So that we are on the same page.

Please don't change the subject. I laid out a series of claims that you extended from observation. Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Please don't change the subject. I laid out a series of claims that you extended from observation. Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

I’m making a claim that this organism is consuming the Cyanobacteria, what’s the problem?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m making a claim that this organism is consuming the Cyanobacteria, what’s the problem?

The problem is that you made a series of specific claims and are now trying to move away from them to something less specific.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The problem is that you made a series of specific claims and are now trying to move away from them to something less specific.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

So, still don’t see the problem William. What exactly are you getting at?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I have sta

So, still don’t see the problem . What exactly are you getting at?

I stated above, with quotes in context. I am asking you to support the chain of claims or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I have sta


I stated above, with quotes in context. I am asking you to support the chain of claims or retract them.

lol, why should i retract them? They are up there with images and videos to support them.

 

[BeanAnimal]

lol, why should i retract them?

Images and video aren't automatically support, it's the verifiable interpretation that goes with them, which you haven't provided.

You've already said the ID is unresolved:
"that's why I've been calling them amoeba like, the exact ID would be nice to know"

And you admitted openly that:
"confirmation bias is possible."

The footage isn't evidence for the specific claims. It's the thing being interpreted, possibly through bias by your own admission, and the claims are stacked on an ID you effectively conceded when EnterName challenged it.

Please, either support the stack of claims or retract them so that we can keep your thread moving.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Images and video aren't automatically support, it's the verifiable interpretation that goes with them, which you haven't provided.

You've already said the ID is unresolved:
"that's why I've been calling them amoeba like, the exact ID would be nice to know"

And you admitted openly that:
"confirmation bias is possible."

The footage isn't evidence for the specific claims. It's the thing being interpreted, possibly through bias by your own admission, and the claims are stacked on an ID you effectively conceded when EnterName challenged it.

Please, either support the stack of claims or retract them so that we can keep your thread moving.

Did you ever heard that an image is worth 1000 words, I was being nice to EnterName. My claim stands. Should I ask the boss if there is a problem or can you handle it?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Did you ever heard that an image is worth 1000 words, I was being nice to EnterName. My claim stands. Should I ask the boss if there is a problem or can you handle it?

Being nice to EnterName doesn't undo it, and excusing it as politeness doesn't retract it. You said the ID would be nice to know. You can't retract that now to argue something different.

Are you standing by your words that you don't have an ID? Or is your claim now that your ID is correct? Because that's what's required to support the other claims stacked on it, and to match what you said in post #1: "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria".

An image is only worth 1000 words if the words back the claim. You haven't given the words, just the claims.

I am asking you to support that stack of claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Being nice to EnterName doesn't undo it, and excusing it as politeness doesn't retract it. You said the ID would be nice to know. You can't retract that now to argue something different.

Are you standing by your words that you don't have an ID? Or is your claim now that your ID is correct? Because that's what's required to support the other claims stacked on it, and to match what you said in post #1: "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria".

An image is only worth 1000 words if the words back the claim. You haven't given the words, just the claims.

I am asking you to support that stack of claims.

Is that the best come back you can think of William?