How to distinguish information from misinformation?

[sixty_reefer]

It takes more of a critical mind to do due dilligence with data these days.

It is truly annoying when I see threads full of good info that was asked for, but the OP disagrees or makes excuses why "that won't work".

It can be frustrating as someone asks for advice and end up dismissing most of it, it could be their way of filtering through all the info although some times I think that they just looking to validate their initial belief. A certain level of skepticism is usually helpful as so much advice is given as fact, maybe is part of the learning process, if their beliefs are incorrect they may change their line of thinking down the line, maybe making mistakes is a way to learn how to filter the good information from the bad one.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Stop vetting the answer so much and start vetting who gave the answer more

If I can’t figure out who you are and why I should trust you, your information is pointless to me until I can

Buy that raises another question. How a new member is supposed to differentiate between someone genuinely giving good information and someone sounding confident parroting misinformation.
I’ve been around since the days Julian Sprung used to be active on this forum and do remember seeing folks dismissing his advice without realising who they were arguing with, at times it was honestly hilarious.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think your thread (sorry forgot the title) about believing the observation but questioning the cause-effect conclusion is an approach to limit misinformation intake.

Yes, good point that relates to this thread.

Here’s the summary for readers here:

Unless someone is lying, you can always believe their observations.

What you cannot believe without further investigation is their explanation of why the observation happened.

Simple example:

“This tank looks great because I use X product”

Assuming the tank does look great, don’t just accept the explanation that product X is related to the greatness.

The tank might look great because of X, or still looks great despite X harming the tank, or maybe X does nothing at all.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Buy that raises another question. How a new member is supposed to differentiate between someone genuinely giving good information and someone sounding confident parroting misinformation.

Maybe the better question is:

What is the best way to handle sources of misinformation once they are identified and how to we make sure that the information gets corrected and the source stops spreading it, so that people are not further exposed to it?

Buy that raises another question. How a new member is supposed to differentiate between someone genuinely giving good information and someone sounding confident parroting misinformation.

The community at large typically has many well informed people and subject matter experts that sniff this kind of thing out and expose the misinformation by countering it with facts, science and logic. It is part of the fabric of the community.

I’ve been around since the days Julian Sprung used to be active on this forum and do remember seeing folks dismissing his advice without realising who they were arguing with, at times it was honestly hilarious.

What is hilarious? Are Julian’s advice and words above reproach? Is his advice and information not open to scrutiny, especially when offered in a public forum?

Let’s go a step further. Why do you feel his words carry weight? Is it because his advice has withstood scrutiny, and because he can substantiate it with facts, science, and logic? Is it because, in forums like Reef2Reef, he can respond directly without deflecting or changing the topic?

Could we not therefore argue that people questioning his advice, and him countering clearly and on topic, is part of the reason his advice stands?

That is very different from the typical confident purveyor of misinformation who cannot defend what they write, and instead deflects, moves goalposts, and uses scientific language to create the illusion of expertise.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Maybe the better question is:

What is the best way to handle sources of misinformation once they are identified and how to we make sure that the information gets corrected and the source stops spreading it, so that people are not further exposed to it?


The community at large typically has many well informed people and subject matter experts that sniff this kind of thing out and expose the misinformation by countering it with facts, science and logic. It is part of the fabric of the community.

How could you determine that something is definitely misinformation in a hobby with multiple pathways to succeed? And once you were able to identify something as misinformation, how would you go about addressing it? Correcting it respectfully is one thing, but trying to stop folks from spreading certain ideas can become complicated pretty quickly in a hobby that relies so much on anecdotal experiences.

 

[shattered]

It's a skill called information literacy.

I use to look for reputable forum users and then observe how they reason, and contrast information between different sources and my own experience and intuition.

 

[landlubber]

Times change and tech follows, sure. However, science doesn’t….for example a quote from Sprung’s Book printed in 1994, “little actual documentation of nitrate toxicity exists, and public aquariums, as well as home aquariums have demonstrated quite plainly that fish and invertebrates not only tolerate high nitrate levels, They can thrive in waters with high nitrates, 40 no3 ppm”

Maybe the dudes you’re referring too would benefit from some books and education?

The science doesn't change but our understanding of it certainly does.
for my entire reefing experience the redfield ratio has been the standard ratio for managing phosphate and nitrate. I just recently read that the samples were all collected from surface water and not directly from the reef which can produce slightly different results. The science didn't change but the relevance of how it is used is being reconsidered.
I've actually met Julien Sprung and one thing that stood out about him is his willingness to share and consider ideas. He didn't scoff at people questions.
Lastly, i'm here to learn and exchange ideas which as far as I'm aware is still the point of the foum. Its easy to talk smack on the internet but between you and the guy that issued the most influential reefing video information series for years there isn't really a consideration.

 

[BeanAnimal]

How could you determine that something is definitely misinformation in a hobby with multiple pathways to succeed? And once you were able to identify something as misinformation, how would you go about addressing it? Correcting it respectfully is one thing, but trying to stop folks from spreading certain ideas can become complicated pretty quickly in a hobby that relies so much on anecdotal experiences.

Multiple pathways to success do not make every claim valid. You are conflating two different things.

Anecdote is fine when it is presented as anecdote. The problem is when anecdote is used in place of, or contrary to science or established fact.

Misinformation can still be identified when the claim is demonstrably false. It may be unsupported, contradicted by known science, logically inconsistent, self contradictory, or repeatedly defended by changing the topic.

Correcting it respectfully is ideal, but that also requires the person making the claim to engage honestly. When the person continues to repeat claims that cannot be substantiated, treats peers as beneath them, and refuses to ever acknowledge error, then the problem is no longer just the original claim. It becomes a pattern of misinformation and deflection. That person is no longer sharing ideas, they are spreading misinformation.

If every direct question is met with deflection, reframing, or appeals to “different methods,” then the issue is not disagreement. It is the refusal to support the claim.

A hobby having many successful pathways does not exempt claims from scrutiny, especially when those claims contradict known science or established facts.

 

[CHSUB]

The science doesn't change but our understanding of it certainly does.
for my entire reefing experience the redfield ratio has been the standard ratio for managing phosphate and nitrate. I just recently read that the samples were all collected from surface water and not directly from the reef which can produce slightly different results. The science didn't change but the relevance of how it is used is being reconsidered.
I've actually met Julien Sprung and one thing that stood out about him is his willingness to share and consider ideas. He didn't scoff at people questions.
Lastly, i'm here to learn and exchange ideas which as far as I'm aware is still the point of the foum. Its easy to talk smack on the internet but between you and the guy that issued the most influential reefing video information series for years there isn't really a consideration.

Not sure if you believe I “scoffed” at your comment but I didn’t. I pointed out that the information “recently” disclosed by Vic and Ryan has long ago been documented. Many believe the hobby today is vastly improved and while some things have improved much has not.
I agree with your sentiment about Julian, being from Miami I first met him in the late 90’s at Gables Aquarium and more than a dozen times since. Even delivered saltwater to his house with VIP Saltwater.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Is the question strictly hobby related? It’s really a topic that should be beaten into our heads at birth as it pertains to absolutely everything. More “how to think”, less “what to think”. What’s obviously in the land of make believe to one, can be absolute to another. Even skeptic's, like me, have an inherent amount of trust that’s built in to the human condition. Some trust blindly, with no question. How to fix that, if it should be fixed, is way beyond my pay grade.

 

[landlubber]

Not sure if you believe I “scoffed” at your comment but I didn’t. I pointed out that the information “recently” disclosed by Vic and Ryan has long ago been documented. Many believe the hobby today is vastly improved and while some things have improved much has not.
I agree with your sentiment about Julian, being from Miami I first met him in the late 90’s at Gables Aquarium and more than a dozen times since. Even delivered saltwater to his house with VIP Saltwater.

The irony of telling them to read more books is the comment you took issue with was misread ... I wasn't talking about fish and invert health relating to nitrogen. They were discussing their findings relating to coral.
No harm done as it was an honest mistake

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

Not sure if this was mentioned or not but, at times, there are many answers to the same question in this hobby.

There are also the hobbyists who "tried many different things" and think that a particular "thing" that they did, was the answer to the problem. They are not lying, they are just confused.

 

[CHSUB]

They were discussing their findings relating to coral.

Just to add, corals are invertebrates.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I’ve worked in this industry for 30+ years. Worked with a few LFSs and service companies. Worked with several people that you’ve all heard of. Done however many trade shows. Etc etc.

Frankly, I don’t use much information from within the industry. I have a pretty solid grasp on the science of ecology, and I go to research that doesn’t have anything to do with the aquarium industry to learn more or fill in gaps in my understanding.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve learned some interesting things on this board…which is why I’m here. It is always useful to view things through other lenses, and this forum is a great place to be able to do that.

Anything else out there that I’m using? Nope. Any info from within the industry or on the socials largely gets ignored.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Multiple pathways to success do not make every claim valid. You are conflating two different things.

Anecdote is fine when it is presented as anecdote. The problem is when anecdote is used in place of, or contrary to science or established fact.

Misinformation can still be identified when the claim is demonstrably false. It may be unsupported, contradicted by known science, logically inconsistent, self contradictory, or repeatedly defended by changing the topic.

Correcting it respectfully is ideal, but that also requires the person making the claim to engage honestly. When the person continues to repeat claims that cannot be substantiated, treats peers as beneath them, and refuses to ever acknowledge error, then the problem is no longer just the original claim. It becomes a pattern of misinformation and deflection. That person is no longer sharing ideas, they are spreading misinformation.

If every direct question is met with deflection, reframing, or appeals to “different methods,” then the issue is not disagreement. It is the refusal to support the claim.

A hobby having many successful pathways does not exempt claims from scrutiny, especially when those claims contradict known science or established facts.

Curious on what you mean by “deflection”. Are you referring to the person not answering the question or more broadly challenging the question itself?

 

[landlubber]

Just to add, corals are invertebrates.

I just learned something then. thank you

 

[Gumbies R Us]

In my experience. I always double-check information that is given to me. Does the information line up with what "experts" say is correct? Is the information that is being given able to be backed up with experience?
I feel like a pitfall for a lot of new reefers is to fall victim to "trend chasing" or believing everything they see. Not to mention with the rise of social media personas, it's easy for people to believe those people because it is "Stuff you HAVE to be doing, you need THIS in your tank, etc..." Buy what is trustworthy, do your research, and never jump to any quick fixes before double-checking.

 

[rtparty]

Buy that raises another question. How a new member is supposed to differentiate between someone genuinely giving good information and someone sounding confident parroting misinformation.
I’ve been around since the days Julian Sprung used to be active on this forum and do remember seeing folks dismissing his advice without realising who they were arguing with, at times it was honestly hilarious.

You missed the point and only worried about the information. Read what I wrote again, vet the person giving the answer more and vet the information less.

For a newbie...search the user who is answering your questions. Do they seem to be active with lots of posts/threads? Do they have a good reaction score? Do they have a Tank Thread? Read some of the posts they have written. Do they seem to garner respect from peers?

While activity and reaction scores can be heavily skewed, they actually are a pretty good metric to get a quick idea if that user seems to be "valuable" to the forum. A ratio close to 1:1 or even under is a pretty good signal for myself that that user isn't all that valuable. Again, not always true but a good enough metric for me. A 1:1.5 or even 1:2 (5,000 messages with 7,500 to 10,00 reaction score) usually means they are respected. Use a little critical thinking here and it goes a long way.

If someone passes that quick check for me, I click their name and see threads they have started or find their build thread. If they have a build thread, is their tank on par with what I want?

Can I figure out who the person is in real life? For example, Bean or Randy. Easily identifiable and easily found with a Google search. This lends to their credibility.

To be blunt...I recommend and actually participate in not listening to 95% or more of the people on here. Not because that many have poor advice but because I follow the motto "Stop listening to everyone and start listening to someone."

 

[BeanAnimal]

Curious on what you mean by “deflection”. Are you referring to the person not answering the question or more broadly challenging the question itself?

By deflection, I mean avoiding the substance of the question or claim when asked to substantiate it.

Deflection includes things like continually reframing the issue or broadening scope to avoid being pinned down.

Deflection is pivoting to “different methods”, appealing to authority, or sidestepping when the question is directly about a specific claim.

Deflection is answering questions with questions meant to shift focus or broaden scope to avoid answering the direct question.

Deflection is treating requests for support or substantiation as hostility, or shifting the burden of proof onto the person asking the question.

Deflection is when someone makes a direct claim and is then asked to define terms, explain the mechanism, provide proof, or reconcile contradictions, and their response is to repeatedly move away from that substance or outright ignore the questions.

Deflection is also abandoning the discussion and starting new threads to push the same ideas with a different lead in once the original claim, as framed, becomes difficult to defend.

Challenging a question is fine. Challenging the premise is fine. But when the same pattern repeats and becomes the predominant response to all scrutiny, the pattern starts to speak for itself.

 

[sixty_reefer]

By deflection, I mean avoiding the substance of the question or claim when asked to substantiate it.

Deflection includes things like continually reframing the issue or broadening scope to avoid being pinned down.

Deflection is pivoting to “different methods”, appealing to authority, or sidestepping when the question is directly about a specific claim.

Deflection is answering questions with questions meant to shift focus or broaden scope to avoid answering the direct question.

Deflection is treating requests for support or substantiation as hostility, or shifting the burden of proof onto the person asking the question.

Deflection is when someone makes a direct claim and is then asked to define terms, explain the mechanism, provide proof, or reconcile contradictions, and their response is to repeatedly move away from that substance or outright ignore the questions.

Deflection is also abandoning the discussion and starting new threads to push the same ideas with a different lead in once the original claim, as framed, becomes difficult to defend.

Challenging a question is fine. Challenging the premise is fine. But when the same pattern repeats and becomes the predominant response to all scrutiny, the pattern starts to speak for itself.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.