Can a Reef Tank Be Crashed by Misinformation?

[BeanAnimal]

I have to agree, at least to an extent, with the first part of your post. Misleading marketing, false product claims and demonstrably incorrect information can absolutely become misinformation.

The second part, however, starts to sound more like “if you don’t agree with someone else’s interpretation, then you’re spreading misinformation.” Science and this hobby often involve competing interpretations of incomplete evidence. Simply repeating a position that others disagree with doesn’t automatically make it misinformation. It becomes misinformation when there is clear, robust evidence showing a claim is false and it continues to be presented as fact while ignoring that evidence.

That's not even close to what was said. My words were very specific. That doesn't "sound like" what was said, that's what you're reframing it to sound like, so you can argue against a position nobody actually took. You pulled exactly the same reframe on Randy's point, as noted above: reframe the statement of fact, then chop off the qualifiers that turn hypothesis and opinion into misinformation. You just did it again.

What was said: it becomes misinformation when someone keeps repeating a claim after being shown it was wrong, or the claimant can't support the claim when asked. That may mean factually incorrect, too abstract to hold, unfalsifiable, undefined, unsupportable, deflective answers and reframes, or any number of flaws. The burden is on the person making the claim to prove it. You want to turn that on its head and shift the burden to the person pointing out that it hasn't been proven, as if they now need to give evidence that it hasn't been proven. That is burden shift fallacy, and the record shows that you attempt it often when asked to prove your claims.

You reframes make any meaningful conversation impossible to advance, no matter the subject. You have dismissed or reframed most reasonable and factual posts in this thread. Context always matters and your post history is easily searchable by anybody here and shows this to be an unbroken pattern, regardless of the subject.

 

[sixty_reefer]

That's not even close to what was said. My words were very specific. That doesn't "sound like" what was said, that's what you're reframing it to sound like, so you can argue against a position nobody actually took. You pulled exactly the same reframe on Randy's point, as noted above: reframe the statement of fact, then chop off the qualifiers that turn hypothesis and opinion into misinformation. You just did it again.

What was said: it becomes misinformation when someone keeps repeating a claim after being shown it was wrong, or the claimant can't support the claim when asked. That may mean factually incorrect, too abstract to hold, unfalsifiable, undefined, unsupportable, deflective answers and reframes, or any number of flaws. The burden is on the person making the claim to prove it. You want to turn that on its head and shift the burden to the person pointing out that it hasn't been proven, as if they now need to give evidence that it hasn't been proven. That is burden shift fallacy, and the record shows that you attempt it often when asked to prove your claims.

You reframes make any meaningful conversation impossible to advance, no matter the subject. You have dismissed or reframed most reasonable and factual posts in this thread. Context always matters and your post history is easily searchable by anybody here and shows this to be an unbroken pattern, regardless of the subject.

You are still treating “someone says the claim has not been proven” as though that automatically means the claim has been shown to be wrong. Those are not the same thing.

I agree that the person making a claim has a responsibility to support it, particularly when presenting it as fact. But a claim does not become misinformation merely because another member disputes the evidence, considers it too abstract or is unconvinced by the explanation. It becomes misinformation when it is demonstrably false or when material evidence contradicting it is knowingly ignored while the claim continues to be presented as fact.

My original point was about where that line is drawn. Your response broadens the definition to include claims you consider unsupported, unfalsifiable, poorly defined or inadequately answered. Some of those may be weak arguments, bad hypotheses or unsupported opinions, but they are not automatically misinformation.

As for the claims about my post history and an “unbroken pattern,” those are personal allegations rather than a response to the distinction I raised. If you believe I have repeatedly stated specific false claims after being shown clear evidence that they were wrong, quote those claims and the evidence rather than making general accusations about my character or behaviour.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I agree. That’s why I personally try to make sure that most of the views I discuss on the forum are supported by the available literature whenever possible. If I can help reduce misinformation being spread, then I’ve achieved something worthwhile. At the same time, I’m more than happy to change my position if stronger evidence comes along. By “stronger evidence”, I mean better data and better research, not simply the opinions of others, no matter how experienced or active they are on the forum.

I don't think he was agreeing with with you, and you reframed him too.

"I'm happy to change my position if stronger evidence comes along."

The "science article" linked to your "My Tank Thread" badge tells a different story, as does that statement sitting just posts below where several direct citations were shown to be misapplied, and instead of updating your position, you reframed to avoid being wrong.

It is worth naming the semantics here too. "Stronger evidence" only works as a standard if you accept any evidence as stronger. You don't, so the position never changes, which makes that claim just as unfalsifiable as the rest. This pattern has held in every thread that I have participated and other that I have examined from afar.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't think he was agreeing with with you

What do you think he meant then? I took his comment at face value. How did you interpret it?

 

[BeanAnimal]

What do you think he meant then? I took his comment at face value. How did you interpret it?

That wasn't the point of my post, and arguing an irrelevancy instead is exactly the kind of gaming that avoids scrutiny, here by asking a question meaningless to the overall context.

Interpretation? Face value would have been recognizing that 13rodo was adding to the hedge language cited earlier in this thread, associated with your posts and claims as a recurring pattern.

The gaming of the reframe?

Ttaking his unambiguous post, treating it as a sincere academic tip to agree with, adding self-congratulatory language to co-opt his standard, which you demonstrably do not uphold, then further asking "I took his comment at face value, how did you interpret it?" when the irony was already pointed out with "I don't think that is what he meant." Now, with this question, reframed and gamed twice.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You are still treating “someone says the claim has not been proven” as though that automatically means the claim has been shown to be wrong. Those are not the same thing.

This is the burden shift fallacy again, with the "quote me" game added. Still burden shift.

You are regularly directly quoted. It is a fundamental part of holding you to your claims and words.

It is always the same mechanism on both sides. You make claims and are chased through a cycle of endless reframes and deflections for answers until the other party exhausts or the thread is locked.

These are not allegations and they are not personal, they are simply the public record, available to everyone. This thread following the pattern.

The distinctions you made have been addressed, you just don’t accept the truthful answers, reframe and try again. Same pattern as always.

Yes, I broadened "misinformation" back to its actual contextual meaning because this thread was an attempt to narrowly define it to give yourself cover. Exposed now that the true context has unfolded.

 

[Jimbo327]

It is reef safe. Of course anything used incorrectly can be harmful.

It's reef safe until it is not.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/c...-struggling-after-flatworm-treatment.1166240/

 

[FrugalReeferJon]

Me watching all the back and forth comments on this thread.

 

[Dan_P]

As for the claims about my post history and an “unbroken pattern,” those are personal allegations rather than a response to the distinction I raised. If you believe I have repeatedly stated specific false claims after being shown clear evidence that they were wrong, quote those claims and the evidence rather than making general accusations about my character or behaviour.

The “unbroken pattern” is at this point an established fact. The evidence has been objectively presented in many threads over the years and is amazingly consistent. At some point, it would make an interesting post to gather the evidence in one thread.

As for the information you were looking for in this thread, why didn’t you just start out asking for examples of false or completely wrong information that led to a serious aquarium problem? That would have been far less misleading and a waste of time than asking about misinformation which is a fairly broad term and includes inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading statements.

 

[winxp_man]

Me watching all the back and forth comments on this thread.

I’ll join….

 

[LovinlifeinGuam]

This feels like a continuation of the thread that just got locked, wrapped in a new rhetorical question about hypothesis versus misinformation, hedged again so it can't be wrong. A question posed, but already answered by the framing itself.

A hypothesis is fine on its own. The problem isn't proposing ideas, it's presenting them with hedges soft enough to sound like a hypothesis while still functioning as a claim, "fits nicely with," "likely influenced by," language built to never be wrong rather than to be tested. That's not a hypothesis. That's a claim dressed up to look like one. The tell, in general: hypothesis, made as hedged claims that never get substantiated when pressed, and never get abandoned or retracted either. They just carry weight through repetition instead.

"Crashed" is also doing a lot of work here. What counts as a crash, specifically? Until that's defined, any answer can be framed as confirming or denying whatever's convenient.

Has anybody followed bad advice and had less than desirable outcomes or pure disaster? Sure, that is just asking g for stories of bad advice, which are everywhere. That is not the real question being framed here, but a vehicle for the pre answered question underneath it, whether critical pushback is "fair."

@BeanAnimal Your replies are too logical for these threads! I was going to leave a reply, but you already summarized everything I would have probably spent a great deal of time explaining. Thank you for saving me the time...I really do mean that!

 

[EnterName]

It is reef safe. Of course anything used incorrectly can be harmful.

It's reef safe until it is not.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/c...-struggling-after-flatworm-treatment.1166240/

To be fair, it is most likely my bad for treating twice within a short amount of time. I'm not going to try that stuff again, but I would still call it more or less "reef safe" if you perform many precautions like treating rocks in a separate bucket a few days ahead, remove flatworms for multiple days every day thoroughly by hand, and stick to the exact amount proposed by the instructions and treat once additionally to changing at least 50% if not much more of the water shortly after treatment. Some flatworms will survive the treatment anyway for whatever reason.

My stupidity was most likely the culprit, not necessarily the product.
However it is noteworthy that the used dewormer can most likely cause trouble in fish just like the flatworm toxins themself.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Me watching all the back and forth comments on this thread.

I’ll join….

Might as well join in

 

[Dan_P]

Here are my answers to the OP’s questions

So where do you draw the line between misinformation, opinion and hypothesis?

An opinion can definitely be considered misinformation. Here is what I gathered from a Google search about opinions crossing the line of misinformation: built on false premises, opinions disguised as news, and misleading framing (partial truths or manipulating facts). When an opinion asserts a false factual claim to justify its conclusion, it moves out of the realm of purely subjective thought and functions as misinformation. Also, saying “I believe” or “IMO” does not stop an opinion from becoming misinformation,

A hypothesis is a falsifiable claim and moves into the realm of misinformation when it strongly contradicts already proven facts. I think we are more likely to encounter flawed hypotheses on R2R then ones that could be classified as misinformation.

Have you ever followed advice that you genuinely believe harmed your tank or maybe even saved it?

This question is likely in support of the first question, demonstrating that misinformation/opinion/hypothesis does no real harm. With the low number of responses, one might conclude that misinformation, opinions, and hypotheses are unlikely to pose any serious harm to an aquarium.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Here are my answers to the OP’s questions

So where do you draw the line between misinformation, opinion and hypothesis?

An opinion can definitely be considered misinformation. Here is what I gathered from a Google search about opinions crossing the line of misinformation: built on false premises, opinions disguised as news, and misleading framing (partial truths or manipulating facts). When an opinion asserts a false factual claim to justify its conclusion, it moves out of the realm of purely subjective thought and functions as misinformation. Also, saying “I believe” or “IMO” does not stop an opinion from becoming misinformation,

A hypothesis is a falsifiable claim and moves into the realm of misinformation when it strongly contradicts already proven facts. I think we are more likely to encounter flawed hypotheses on R2R then ones that could be classified as misinformation.

Have you ever followed advice that you genuinely believe harmed your tank or maybe even saved it?

This question is likely in support of the first question, demonstrating that misinformation/opinion/hypothesis does no real harm. With the low number of responses, one might conclude that misinformation, opinions, and hypotheses are unlikely to pose any serious harm to an aquarium.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions.

I’m trying to understand your definition in the context of advice that is commonly repeated in the hobby and specifically where the line is between opinion, hypothesis and misinformation. At what point do repeated hobby claims cross into misinformation under your definition?

For example:

“Low nutrients can lead to dinoflagellates.”

“In my opinion, low nitrates can lead to dinoflagellates.”

Statements like these are repeated throughout the hobby, yet the evidence and the mechanisms are still debated. Under your definition, at what point does a statement like this become misinformation rather than an opinion or a hypothesis? Is it the wording, the available evidence or something else?

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal Your replies are too logical for these threads! I was going to leave a reply, but you already summarized everything I would have probably spent a great deal of time explaining. Thank you for saving me the time...I really do mean that!

Logic isn’t the same as facts… just saying.

 

[gorilla]

50% of all reef information out there is misinformation

 

[BeanAnimal]

Might as well join in

Posting a popcorn gif to "join in" is mockery, and it only works if you can pretend you're in the gallery and not the one being talked about. Same move as 13rodo's post, reframed and co-opted to look like it was in your favor when it wasn't.

Logic isn’t the same as facts… just saying.

That's a strawman, dismissing the post as "just logic" without fact ignores that it was built entirely on what you've said and done in this thread, your quoted words and ideas, not abstract logic. Same tactic as always: don't engage the point, deflect around it.

Two more responses aimed at reframing pushback, in real time. The pattern holds exactly as described.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’ll stay in the gallery while the discussion is about me personally. If it gets back to the actual subject, I may pop back in.

Most of your recent posts have been about my behaviour rather than the topic itself. I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole. If the discussion returns to misinformation and the evidence behind it, I’m happy to take part.