Do “reefers” rely on science or a 6th sense?

[jabberwock]

I think it all starts with science to say the least...and like someone else said, making observations is a big part of science

Observation is the initial step.

 

[Reef and Dive]

Of course it is science. How do you suppose a two part was invented? Even trial and error is science, but the two part you mentioned (as well as every other calcium and alkalinity dosing method we use) was developed by careful application of science, and so anyone using a two part is using the product of scientific efforts.

Agree partially. There are for sure plenty scientific information on carbonate and calcium consumption and on skeletal growth.

But 2 part, 3 part, Balling and so on are trully excelent methods even though I disagree the scientific method is on their roots, they have been published originally on reefing magazines, forums, excellent books, but I do not recall reading these methods growing and being developed on scientific papers. Many amazing articles were made by yourself and I find them ultra detailed and some of the best sources of information.

This does not change their extreme value to me, my point is that we reefers frequently misuse the world science to represent “good reefing literature”.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Agree partially. There are for sure plenty scientific information on carbonate and calcium consumption and on skeletal growth.

But 2 part, 3 part, Balling and so on are trully excelent methods even though I disagree the scientific method is on their roots, they have been published originally on reefing magazines, forums, excellent books, but I do not recall reading these methods growing and being developed on scientific papers. Many amazing articles were made by yourself and I find them ultra detailed and some of the best sources of information.

This does not change their extreme value to me, my point is that we reefers frequently misuse the world science to represent “good reefing literature”.

Scientific journal papers are not what defines science. If that is what you mean, then fine, but that’s not any normal definition of what science overall is.

Here is googlfirst definition of science, and to me it sounds like what nearly every reefer does, and certainly encompasses what the originators of various dosing mechanisms did:


“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Observations might be test kit results, a coral not looking normal, or any number of things that triggers an action intended to help it. It it does, it’s a positive experimental result

 

[AKL1950]

Interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe for nearly 2000 years everyone believed, and the “scientist could prove” the earth was flat and the entire universe revolved around it. They even built little models to prove how it worked. The nay sayers like Galileo, Newton and Einstein were ridiculed for not following the ”science”.

we, as far as we know, are the only species on this planet that writes down things we have learned to pass on to future generations. Those things were learned by observation and experiment (science) led by a sixth sense that what was currently believed may not be right. Our ability to experiment has gotten better, but our sixth sense will guide us when the science appears to be a little off.

I got out of reef keeping 15 years ago and now I’m back. 15 years ago, we were told the science says get your NO3 and PO4 to zero. We know now that sucks. We can only guess what the science will be 20 years from now.

I say reef keepers have a unique ability to observe nature and take what they observe (sixth sense) along with applied science (past observation and experimentation called science) and apply it together to create a living mini world. I would never listen to a Doctor that only knew the science, but could not correctly observe to come up with the correct diagnosis. You have to see what’s in front of you and go with your gut instincts as to which science applies and what you feel.

I say both are necessary, but my sixth sense plays a big part on how I do my caretaking, because I know the science can change.

Jetson

 

[Reef and Dive]

The nay sayers like Galileo, Newton and Einstein were ridiculed for not following the ”science”.

Sorry this was a bad example. Galileo and Newton are considered by many to be the fathers of the Scientific Method. Einstein published most of his work on Scientific papers. These gentlemen were not against the scientific method. In a way they were THE scientific method itself.

 

[jabberwock]

Agree partially. There are for sure plenty scientific information on carbonate and calcium consumption and on skeletal growth.

But 2 part, 3 part, Balling and so on are trully excelent methods even though I disagree the scientific method is on their roots, they have been published originally on reefing magazines, forums, excellent books, but I do not recall reading these methods growing and being developed on scientific papers. Many amazing articles were made by yourself and I find them ultra detailed and some of the best sources of information.

This does not change their extreme value to me, my point is that we reefers frequently misuse the world science to represent “good reefing literature”.

Well said. Part of the scientific method is documentation and peer review. You have to intend to do science before you begin. You also have to know the steps of the scientific method and you must follow them. A few of the most overlooked components of the scientific method are: a null hypothesis, a control group for your experiments, and the concept of falsifiability.

 

[jabberwock]

Interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe for nearly 2000 years everyone believed, and the “scientist could prove” the earth was flat and the entire universe revolved around it. They even built little models to prove how it worked. The nay sayers like Galileo, Newton and Einstein were ridiculed for not following the ”science”.

we, as far as we know, are the only species on this planet that writes down things we have learned to pass on to future generations. Those things were learned by observation and experiment (science) led by a sixth sense that what was currently believed may not be right. Our ability to experiment has gotten better, but our sixth sense will guide us when the science appears to be a little off.

I got out of reef keeping 15 years ago and now I’m back. 15 years ago, we were told the science says get your NO3 and PO4 to zero. We know now that sucks. We can only guess what the science will be 20 years from now.

I say reef keepers have a unique ability to observe nature and take what they observe (sixth sense) along with applied science (past observation and experimentation called science) and apply it together to create a living mini world. I would never listen to a Doctor that only knew the science, but could not correctly observe to come up with the correct diagnosis. You have to see what’s in front of you and go with your gut instincts as to which science applies and what you feel.

I say both are necessary, but my sixth sense plays a big part on how I do my caretaking, because I know the science can change.

Jetson

Yes, the science is designed to change! The method recognizes its own lack of perfection and compensates for it.

 

[MaxTremors]

As the examples I’ve said….

Science dictates UV lights is harmful to corals.

Effects of ultraviolet radiation and nutrient level on the physiological response and organic matter release of the scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicornis following thermal stress

Understanding which factors enhance or mitigate the impact of high temperatures on corals is crucial to predict the severity of coral bleaching worldwide. On the one hand, global warming is usually associated with high ultraviolet radiation levels (UVR), and surface water nutrient depletion due...

journals.plos.org

SIMULATED SOLAR ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION EFFECTS ON 5 SPECIES OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS | Science Inventory | US EPA

cfpub.epa.gov

Most of us use (including myself) plenty of UV (actually more violet than UV) to stimulate pigmentation…. I just understand the process and use it as a controled source of tool for our goals.

Symbiodinium concentration is related to coral health in many articles:

SYMBIOSIS STABILITY, PATHOGENS AND HEALTH OF REEF-BUILDING CORALS: INSIGHTS ON THE ECOLOGY OF THE HUMAN BODY | Lima | Oecologia Australis

But we very often intentionally reduce their concentration for more intense colors (this is a fact) and sometimes for more growth (this is just my controversial opinion).

Science is not actually dictating what should be done in a reef tank, but misinterpreting what many studies show to be health indicators could mislead us the wrong direction.

Here I differentiate true scientific articles from good aquarium literature, that involves many respected authors with a huge experience on aquarium care. Most of this books are excellent references for us. As an example, I have never ever read a scientific article on 2 part dosing. That is good and serious work of aquarists, but that is not really science…

I agree that science doesn’t dictate anything, and that that’s a poor choice of words, science doesn’t have an agenda or an end goal, I think it’s more accurate to say that you use evidence or fact based approaches than ‘what science dictates’. But I do think you’re kind being a bit pedantic and are playing semantics with what constitutes ‘science’. For example, I don’t know that I’ve ever read a study specifically about dosing a two-part, but I’ve read quite a few studies about the way corals use calcium carbonate to make their skeletons and about the chemical makeup of sea water, the reason why we dose a two part is because of our understanding of the science behind coral growth and the chemistry of sea water. I don’t think that something is only science if it’s a published peer-reviewed study, and I don’t think that you have to conduct a strict scientific experiment to make scientific observations or to apply scientific knowledge to a particular problem/scenario. Claiming that no science is used in the hobby (and I’m not saying you specifically made that claim) just strikes me as a really bizarre (and blatantly, obviously false) assertion to make.

 

[Reef and Dive]

Claiming that no science is used in the hobby (and I’m not saying you specifically made that claim)

Check this:

90% with science.

Academic science is something very clear to me, that put aside…

IF we are talking about scientific articles: they bring excellent information BUT many times require careful interpretation.

IF we are talking about good reefing literature they usually bring information already “digested”, easier to apply.

 

[jabberwock]

I agree that science doesn’t dictate anything, and that that’s a poor choice of words, science doesn’t have an agenda or an end goal, I think it’s more accurate to say that you use evidence or fact based approaches than ‘what science dictates’. But I do think you’re kind being a bit pedantic and are playing semantics with what constitutes ‘science’. For example, I don’t know that I’ve ever read a study specifically about dosing a two-part, but I’ve read quite a few studies about the way corals use calcium carbonate to make their skeletons and about the chemical makeup of sea water, the reason why we dose a two part is because of our understanding of the science behind coral growth and the chemistry of sea water. I don’t think that something is only science if it’s a published peer-reviewed study, and I don’t think that you have to conduct a strict scientific experiment to make scientific observations or to apply scientific knowledge to a particular problem/scenario. Claiming that no science is used in the hobby (and I’m not saying you specifically made that claim) just strikes me as a really bizarre (and blatantly, obviously false) assertion to make.

Yes, semantics. I once wrote a paper for a biology professor. The main point of my paper was that: "Science does not reveal any great truths, it is merely a language that we use to describe things."

I fully expected to receive a low grade. I thought I might have disrespected the discipline, but I felt it was a true representation of what I had been taught and believed. He gave me an A- for some issues with my sophomoric technical writing capabilities.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe for nearly 2000 years everyone believed, and the “scientist could prove” the earth was flat and the entire universe revolved around it. They even built little models to prove how it worked. The nay sayers like Galileo, Newton and Einstein were ridiculed for not following the ”science”.

we, as far as we know, are the only species on this planet that writes down things we have learned to pass on to future generations. Those things were learned by observation and experiment (science) led by a sixth sense that what was currently believed may not be right. Our ability to experiment has gotten better, but our sixth sense will guide us when the science appears to be a little off.

I got out of reef keeping 15 years ago and now I’m back. 15 years ago, we were told the science says get your NO3 and PO4 to zero. We know now that sucks. We can only guess what the science will be 20 years from now.

I say reef keepers have a unique ability to observe nature and take what they observe (sixth sense) along with applied science (past observation and experimentation called science) and apply it together to create a living mini world. I would never listen to a Doctor that only knew the science, but could not correctly observe to come up with the correct diagnosis. You have to see what’s in front of you and go with your gut instincts as to which science applies and what you feel.

I say both are necessary, but my sixth sense plays a big part on how I do my caretaking, because I know the science can change.

Jetson

Since you asked to be corrected if wrong, I think you are wrong:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."”

 

[Gp!]

Recruiters are going to be so confused when I get around to adding "Reef engineer" to my LinkedIn profile.

Make sure you don't typo "reefer engineering" and end up working with GMO by mistake

 

[AKL1950]

Since you asked to be corrected if wrong, I think you are wrong:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."”

Yes true. However Galileo was still put under house arrest for the last ten years of his life because his “observation science” didnt conform to the current Paradigm of that time. Copernicus and Newton were both reluctant to publish because of the same reasons. I suspect there are a lot of scientists today who don’t believe in the Big Bang Theory, but keep their heads down from fear of being ostracized from the scientific community.

I believe science holds true till someone can prove it wrong. Then it was always wrong even before it was proved wrong. Einstein is the bright light. No one has been able to prove him wrong. He was even right when he himself thought he was wrong.

My point was suppose to be use the science, but know that it may not be perfect and a some time in the future, the science may be proved to be different when people take the next steps in observation and experiment. Also, never blow off your own observation, because that’s where new science begins.

Jetson

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes true. MYes true. However Galileo was still put under house arrest for the last ten years of his life because his “observation science” didnt conform to the current Paradigm of that time. Copernicus and Newton were both reluctant to publish because of the same reasons. I suspect there are a lot of scientists today who don’t believe in the Big Bang Theory, but keep their heads down from fear of being ostracized from the scientific community.

I believe science holds true till someone can prove it wrong. Then it was always wrong even before it was proved wrong. Einstein is the bright light. No one has been able to prove him wrong. He was even right when he himself thought he was wrong.

My point was suppose to be use the science, but know that it may not be perfect and a some time in the future, the science may be proved to be different when people take the next steps in observation and experiment. Also, never blow off your own observation, because that’s where new science begins.

Jetson

I cannot respond to that because the answer violates the REEF2REEF terms of service barring religious discussion. The issue you mention was a religion issue, not a science issue.

Regardless, the consensus of reality among scientists is certainly an evolving understanding as new ideas and new experiments are brought to bear.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I really thought a majority of people would agree that this hobby especially is pretty deeply rooted in science... interesting to hear what people think...

 

[HudsonReefer2.0]

Reefing is science no matter how you light it.

 

[Dburr1014]

6th sense, reading messes me up

 

[3429810]

I cannot respond to that because the answer violates the REEF2REEF terms of service barring religious discussion. The issue you mention was a religion issue, not a science issue.

Then why do they have a running prayer thread and enforce rules based on religion? I must have missed the part of his argument that was religious.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Then why do they have a running prayer thread and enforce rules based on religion? I must have missed the part of his argument that was religious.

Im not going to debate the rules here, but you can look up for yourself the Galileo Affair on Wikipedia to see who was the driver of arresting Galileo. It was not the science community.

 

[Dryanimtt]

Largely science, since it dictates the actual values which need to be maintained. I found in the beginning I had to really work to keep things stable, once you reach that certain point your just maintaining the stability. If that makes sense lol (at least it made sense in my head) you develop a sense over time based on how things appear, and less so the actual values.