Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

Seriously?

There is a world of difference between a joke that does not attack anyone, and one that implies another member has a brain defect.

It wasn’t intended as an attack or an implication that anyone has a brain defect. It was comic relief and a callback to your earlier brain eating amoeba joke. If you feel it crosses the line, you can use the moderation tools and have it removed.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It wasn’t intended as an attack or an implication that anyone has a brain defect. It was comic relief and a callback to your earlier brain eating amoeba joke. If you feel it crosses the line, you can use the moderation tools and have it removed.

FWIW, I try to not moderate discussions I am involved with to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. There are others that will evaluate such situations.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

we would still believe in magic and dragons.

Wait,,, what? Are you saying magic and dragons aren’t real? Pfft, next you’ll be telling me that Bigfoot and Nessie aren’t real either!

 

[EnterName]

“Have the amoebas got to your brain?” isn’t much different from “Make sure you are not culturing brain eating amoebas. lol” in post #8 by Randy. Both were clearly intended as comic relief. If you have a problem with mine but not Randy’s, isn’t that a bit of a double standard?

Randy already responded so I will just say that I agree with him.

As for the rest, I’ve provided evidence for the observations and interpretations I’ve made.

And I’ll ask you the same question: if someone challenges another person’s claim by making a counterclaim of their own, shouldn’t they also be expected to provide evidence for that counterclaim? Do you agree? Or are the double standards expanding?

No, because pointing out that a claim lacks support is not a counterclaim. You have provided photos and videos and claimed they are showing amoebas feeding on cyanobacteria. Setting aside the partially unresolved ID and feeding-vs-proximity questions, here is the actual issue:

From the very beginning of this thread, you have been postulating that these organisms are the reason why the cyano mats are receiding. Your sample size is n = 1 tank , with no controls, and no repeatable isolated tests. Your tank doesn't necessarily represent the average reef tank considering what's currently in it. On top of that:

• you don't know if these organisms are capable of reproducing sufficiently to outpace cyano growth,
• you don't know if something else is limiting the cyano growth which even allows the organisms to make a dent into their population in the first place,
• you don't know if other factors like bacteriophages and viruses are involved that were actually causing cyano mats to disappear while the organisms are just obligatory predators or something like "secondary pathogens",
• you don't know if these organisms will be even more harmful than the cyanos in the long run or starve and then let the cyanos regrow.

Therefore: Your photos and videos are insufficient to support your interpretation. The burden of proof remains on your side. You haven't proven causality, and the criticism remains valid. Even with a definite ID, DNA-based or otherwise, the interpretation still wouldn't follow logically from the provided photos and videos.

Can I also remind you that we’re on a reefing forum, not submitting a paper for peer review, despite how some discussions here sometimes seem to be treated.

You're posting publicly, so you will get feedback. Not calling something scientific doesn't make it immune to being wrong/corrected, or harmless when someone reads it without seeing the gaps.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Randy already responded so I will just say that I agree with him.




No, because pointing out that a claim lacks support is not a counterclaim. You have provided photos and videos and claimed they are showing amoebas feeding on cyanobacteria. Setting aside the partially unresolved ID and feeding-vs-proximity questions, here is the actual issue:

From the very beginning of this thread, you have been postulating that these organisms are the reason why the cyano mats are receiding. Your sample size is n = 1 tank , with no controls, and no repeatable isolated tests. Your tank doesn't necessarily represent the average reef tank considering what's currently in it. On top of that:

• you don't know if these organisms are capable of reproducing sufficiently to outpace cyano growth,
• you don't know if something else is limiting the cyano growth which even allows the organisms to make a dent into their population in the first place,
• you don't know if other factors like bacteriophages and viruses are involved that were actually causing cyano mats to disappear while the organisms are just obligatory predators or something like "secondary pathogens",
• you don't know if these organisms will be even more harmful than the cyanos in the long run or starve and then let the cyanos regrow.

Therefore: Your photos and videos are insufficient to support your interpretation. The burden of proof remains on your side. You haven't proven causality, and the criticism remains valid. Even with a definite ID, DNA-based or otherwise, the interpretation still wouldn't follow logically from the provided photos and videos.


You're posting publicly, so you will get feedback. Not calling something scientific doesn't make it immune to being wrong/corrected, or harmless when someone reads it without seeing the gaps.

You still haven’t answered the question I actually asked. BeanAnimal has made several claims in this thread and others without providing evidence to support them. I’m not talking about someone simply pointing out that a claim lacks evidence. I’m asking specifically about someone who challenges a claim by making a counterclaim of their own.

So the question still stands, if someone makes a counterclaim, should they also be responsible for providing evidence to support that claim?

It’s a simple yes or no question. So far you’ve avoided answering it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You still haven’t answered the question I actually asked. BeanAnimal has made several claims in this thread and others without providing evidence to support them. I’m not talking about someone simply pointing out that a claim lacks evidence. I’m asking specifically about someone who challenges a claim by making a counterclaim of their own.

So the question still stands, if someone makes a counterclaim, should they also be responsible for providing evidence to support that claim?

It’s a simple yes or no question. So far you’ve avoided answering it.

EnterName absolutely shouldn't answer the question as is, it is loaded as bait. Specifically called Loaded Question Fallacy. Where any direct yes or no answer concedes a premise that was never established.

Here you loaded it with the pre-drawn conclusion that I am making "counter claims" and demanding EnterName validate that. If he says no, you argue he isn't for anybody having to validate their claims and if he says yes (as expected) then he validates your premise that I am making claims whereby you get to argue I am deflecting and not supporting my own claims. If he refuses to answer or changes the question, you now get to label him as deflecting. Setup so only you can win, no matter the answer.

So, Loaded Question Fallacy setup to bait Burden Shift Fallacy, Illusion of Symmetry Fallacy and Projection.

This is a well established poisonous debate tactic, stacked fallacies designed to induce cognitive fatigue and concept creep. It drags scrutiny away from you by creating side arguments about others, and by projecting your deflective behavior onto those asking you for accountability.

1. Burden Shift: You make a claim but cannot substantiate it. When asked for support you try to shift the burden of proof "prove I am wrong".
2. Framing Trap : The other party rightly refuses the burden shift and you intentionally mischaracterize their scrutiny as a "counter-claim" so that you an go on the offensive.
3. Mirror Projection: By pretending their scrutiny is a counter-claim (illusion of symmetry), you falsely argue that they bear the burden of proof. If they refuse to answer your fabricated "counter-claim," you accuse them of deflecting.

You have spent several posts now trying to set this up with me and with EnterName -- instead of supporting your claims. The deflections are dominating the content of this thread, that is on you. Retract your claims or start supporting them.

 

[Dan_P]

You really need to read my article. You can click on the link in my tank thread at any time. It’s just below my Article Contributor badge and to the right of my R2R Research badge.

We have read and critically reviewed it. The article is a collection of conjectures and junk terms strung together to make it sound learned. I assume you are now referencing it as a new way to avoid dealing with critical questions about the ideas you espouse.

 

[Dan_P]

It’s a simple yes or no question. So far you’ve avoided answering it.

Oh this is rich coming from someone who never answers questions critical to the espoused idea, conjecture, or claim. The level of integrity here is approaching that of a charlatan.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Randy Holmes-Farley, genuine question. considering the recent reminder about respectful discussion by Rev, is this thread going in the direction you hoped these discussions would go? I started it as a bit of humour, it developed into what I thought was an interesting biological observation and we’re now several pages into arguments about claims, wording and the person making the observations. This is exactly what I was trying to describe when I raised the difference between crowd correction and crowd reinforcement.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@Randy Holmes-Farley, genuine question. considering the recent reminder about respectful discussion by Rev, is this thread going in the direction you hoped these discussions would go? I started it as a bit of humour, it developed into what I thought was an interesting biological observation and we’re now several pages into arguments about claims, wording and the person making the observations. This is exactly what I was trying to describe when I raised the difference between crowd correction and crowd reinforcement.

Now you are reframing this thread as attempted humor that somehow just developed into an interesting biological “observation” and it just happens to be extension of the recently closed thread and other “work”.

It's not a genuine question, it's a public square trap asking Randy to moderate tone, not content, using Rev's civility reminder as cover, already settled as the community is violating it against you. Either he backs you against the community, or he's siding with the community, and you can argue he's violating Rev's wishes by doing so. And this from someone complaining about the quality of discourse in the first place, staged for an audience instead of via staff DM. There's no honest answer available in that frame, which is exactly why it was asked that way, in front of a crowd. The same loaded question mechanism used on EnterName.

Note: You already asked Randy this exact question in the other thread, is crowd correction actually good or just reinforcement, and he answered clearly: yes, it's a real benefit, survival of ideas with merit. You're now asking him to walk that back by relabeling the same kind of correction as unfair reinforcement, aimed at you specifically.

The arguments you're framing as disrespect or attacks are of your own making, the direct result of your deflections. You're the one driving the conversation. People are chasing it. This can't be overstated, it's whoever disagrees with something you say, you deflect until they exhaust and walk away.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Now you are reframing this thread as attempted humor that somehow just developed into an interesting biological “observation” and it just happens to be extension of the recently closed thread and other “work”.

It's not a genuine question, it's a public square trap asking Randy to moderate tone, not content, using Rev's civility reminder as cover, already settled as the community is violating it against you. Either he backs you against the community, or he's siding with the community, and you can argue he's violating Rev's wishes by doing so. And this from someone complaining about the quality of discourse in the first place, staged for an audience instead of via staff DM. There's no honest answer available in that frame, which is exactly why it was asked that way, in front of a crowd. The same loaded question mechanism used on EnterName.

Note: You already asked Randy this exact question in the other thread, is crowd correction actually good or just reinforcement, and he answered clearly: yes, it's a real benefit, survival of ideas with merit. You're now asking him to walk that back by relabeling the same kind of correction as unfair reinforcement, aimed at you specifically.

The arguments you're framing as disrespect or attacks are of your own making, the direct result of your deflections. You're the one driving the conversation. People are chasing it. This can't be overstated, it's whoever disagrees with something you say, you deflect until they exhaust and walk away.

I’m not asking Randy to back me against anyone. I asked for his opinion on how the discussion has developed. He’s perfectly capable of disagreeing with me if that’s his view. And just to be clear, this isn’t a public square. It’s a privately owned platform with its own rules and moderation standards.