Nitrogen Cycle - Fish - Light - Coral - Game Over?

[sixty_reefer]

Here is part of the problem: misinterpretation of responses the post. What the op was referring to by “controversy” is not referring any facet of the lead off post but the ensuing complex discussions about potential flaws in the ideas in the lead off post. The controversy is self inflicted by using rhetorical tactics to avoid answering direct questions about the idea.

I find all of these recent threads that stir up controversy

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m genuinely curious which part you found controversial?

You may disagree which the idea or the way it is presented but I’m struggling to see what was actually controversial in the article?

I think we would all prefer prefer that you just answer questions already asked and stay on topic. These posts are another in a series of avoidances that creates a fog and needless back and forth.

However, you asked directly, and you tied your prior threads to this article yourself, re-quoting the question again above and attempting to reframe Dan's response. So the answer is fair game. This is not a personal attack.

The controversy is not a single thing, it is the culmination of a four year pattern of reframing the same ideas without appearing to ever support any claim when directly asked. These threads are presented with the structure, language, and air of scientific expertise. When challenged in their content you retreat to being a casual hobbyist pondering ideas.

The whole mess is a clearly visible, systematic pattern of unsupportable claims, deflections, reframes, and tactical retreats, meant to avoid admitting error, answering a challenge, or backing away from those claims. It amounts to a claim, then endless pages of tactical, patterned filibuster.

The controversy is that the threads are large and visible and riddled with science-sounding language and a fog of deflections and reframes. Those who know better recognize it as unsupported. The rest engage tangents in good faith, giving the threads legitimacy and therefore the claims, and others then read it as science and repeat it. The only actual conversation is with those who you feel help further your claims, everyone else is serially reframed and deflected, no matter their credentials. Twenty pages of people chasing you, giving the appearance of serious scientific discussion. Those not taking the bait and holding you to your claims are painted as trolls or a problem. The problem is the pattern. The record is undeniable for anybody willing to step back from the purposeful fog and look.

That is the damage. That is the controversy.

The evidence is in front of you. A new aquarist and first time poster thinks your article is amazing. When it is really dozens of paragraphs of word soup, two direct contradictions that sink the point, and two pages of deflections instead of direct answers, all reworded and reframed from a dozen prior threads following the same pattern with the same unsupported ideas. Validity by blindingly stubborn repetition, volume and distraction, not support and evidence.

You said that staff asked you to be constructive. You added "I think" hedges as a shied against accountability and softened the wording, but not the claims and abstract layers, stacked them all back together and picked up right where you left off.

Your direct quote from an hour ago "Many aquarists learn by starting and participating in discussions, sharing observations and having their ideas challenged or refined by others" Your actions in this and the connected threads don't uphold what you just said.

That is what is controversial. And it is an undeniable cycle that only you can break.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Crabs McJones is any one getting this back on track?

 

[Crabs McJones]

Looks ok to me. Not sure what the issue is

 

[sixty_reefer]

Looks ok to me. Not sure what the issue is

Thank you for having a look, I was just checking whether, in your view, the discussion had crossed the line from the topic itself to the person presenting it. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Dan_P]

@Crabs McJones is any one getting this back on track?

Easy to do if you wish to participate. I have many questions, and many assumptions to debate. If you continue to refuse to answer my questions or discuss why you made certain assumptions, there isn’t anything to get back on track for me.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Easy to do if you wish to participate. I have many questions, and many assumptions to debate. If you continue to refuse to answer my questions or discuss why you made certain assumptions, there isn’t anything to get back on track for me.

You seem interested in making an argument around assumptions, terminology and at times me personally. I’m happy to answer any questions regarding the topic itself but I’ll continue to pass on questions that focus primarily on terminology, definitions or me.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You seem interested in making an argument around assumptions, terminology and at times me personally. I’m happy to answer any questions regarding the topic itself but I’ll continue to pass on questions that focus primarily on terminology, definitions or me.

That is exactly what peer review is.

That is exactly what a public conversation is.

You made claims. We are asking you to define and support them.

You just openly stated you will only answer questions that don't require you to do that. We already knew that, this thread and the others are the record.

Terminology, definitions, and the evidence behind claims are the topic. There is nothing else to discuss until those are addressed. The questions asked are your words, asked back to you in context for definition and support of your claims and assumptions.

This is now PAGE THREE and we haven't moved past the questions in the first posts of the thread.

 

[sixty_reefer]

That is exactly what peer review is.

Before we proceed with the peer review, could you share your credentials that qualify you to perform one?

Perhaps I’m old fashioned but if I were looking for a peer review on a biology article, I’d generally expect the reviewer to have some background in biology.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Before we proceed with the peer review, could you share your credentials that qualify you to perform one?

You posted this as an article in a public forum. That is the only credential required to read it critically.

You are still reframing filibustering to avoid supporting your claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You posted this as an article in a public forum. That is the only credential required to read it critically.

You are still reframing filibustering to avoid supporting your claims.

what formal background do you have in biology that allows you to confidently conduct a biology peer review? @Dan_P feel free to add yours to.

 

[BeanAnimal]

what formal background do you have in biology that allows you to confidently conduct a biology peer review?

You can repeat that question until you are blue in the face. It is a pure deflection and everyone here can see it and the hundreds of others like it.

Peer review is a process, not a credential. There is no certification required, in academic journals or anywhere else and certainly not at Reef2Reef. The critique stands or falls on its merits. Questioning the reviewer's credentials instead of addressing the critique is the oldest deflection in the book.

You want to argue about anything and everything that allows you to avoid accountability for your own words.
You are now trying to make this about me, instead of your own words. I am not making claims. I, we, this community, I.E. your peers, are asking you to support yours and you have openly refused.

So, the answer is still the same:

You posted this in a public forum. Write access to this forum is the only credential required to read it and respond critically.

You are still filibustering.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal, you have repeatedly described your comments as a peer review. With that in mind, I’d like to know what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you believe quantify you to perform that review effectively.

For a review to have any meaningful value to me, I need confidence that the reviewer has a sufficient understanding of the biology concepts being discussed.

Edit: If you were genuinely working within the field and had read the article in that context, you would likely recognise that many of the questions you’re asking about quantification and measurement only became necessary once a idea moves into experimental stage. At that point, concepts such as resilience, stability, diversity and biome development can be operational defined and measured, the article itself was discussing those concepts at a conceptual level.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@BeanAnimal, you have repeatedly described your comments as a peer review. With that in mind, I’d like to know what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you believe quantify you to perform that review effectively.

For a review to have any meaningful value to me, I need confidence that the reviewer has a sufficient understanding of the biology concepts being discussed.

This is yet another reframe to make this about me and attempt to shift the burden to further distance yourself from your claims. Three pages of this sixty, three pages of deflections to anybody critical of anything you said.

You don't have to find value in the review and your confidence is not my concern, your claims are.

My review and others are for the benefit of those reading your words. That is how peer review works. Nobody needs your approval to evaluate what you say or comment on it.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal did you read the edit?

@BeanAnimal, you have repeatedly described your comments as a peer review. With that in mind, I’d like to know what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you believe quantify you to perform that review effectively.

For a review to have any meaningful value to me, I need confidence that the reviewer has a sufficient understanding of the biology concepts being discussed.

Edit: If you were genuinely working within the field and had read the article in that context, you would likely recognise that many of the questions you’re asking about quantification and measurement only became necessary once a idea moves into experimental stage. At that point, concepts such as resilience, stability, diversity and biome development can be operational defined and measured, the article itself was discussing those concepts at a conceptual level.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@BeanAnimal did you read the edit?

I did.
It is simply another attempt at avoiding supporting your claims and answering the questions already posed.

It is another recycled deflection meant to move the goalposts after three pages of deflections and reframe your words, hiding behind a retreat without abandoning any of it.

It was not presented as conceptual. It was presented as an article with a title challenging conventional practice, a borrowed source used as a credibility decoration, and declarative conclusions. The declarative conclusions and contradictions are outlined in my posts on page one and stand exactly as written.

The contradictions and questions still stand exactly as written. The words "I think" don't shield you from the layered and nested claims any more than reframing it as conceptual does, or engaging sympathetic posters as if it wasn't. You are tying yourself in knots with contradictions. This is what happens when the deflections become too many to manage. The exits start blocking each other.

 

[Reefering1]

 

[Dan_P]

Edit: If you were genuinely working within the field and had read the article in that context, you would likely recognise that many of the questions you’re asking about quantification and measurement only became necessary once a idea moves into experimental stage. At that point, concepts such as resilience, stability, diversity and biome development can be operational defined and measured, the article itself was discussing those concepts at a conceptual level.

If the basic concept is flawed, the experimental phase will not likely happen, hence, the need to delve deeper into the ideas before the experimental stage.

You cannot plan for the observations and measurements if what you plan to observe is ill defined. Resilience and stability as I have already noted are redundant terms for an incompletely developed description for an aquarium. Without resolving this ambiguity, you cannot develop a falsifiable hypothesis. @BeanAnimal does not need a biology degree to see these shortcomings.

The same holds true for exploring diversity and biome development. These concepts are ambiguous and potentially refer to extremely large systems that are unlikely amenable to simple studies. It is naive to think that hobby experiments will provide much insight into such complex systems. Again, you do not need a degree in biology to see there are many missing pieces in your first post.

And here is where the potential usefulness of the discussion and input for correcting incomplete thinking were derailed. When BeanAnimal asked you questions, it was an attempt to have you go through your logic and discover some of the shortcomings I have outlined. Moreover, you continually refuse to defend or further articulate your assumptions, ideas and concepts to help move the discussion along. All this is obvious to anyone that reads your threads.

 

[Dan_P]

I like. Thank you.

 

[sixty_reefer]

If the basic concept is flawed, the experimental phase will not likely happen, hence, the need to delve deeper into the ideas before the experimental stage.

You cannot plan for the observations and measurements if what you plan to observe is ill defined. Resilience and stability as I have already noted are redundant terms for an incompletely developed description for an aquarium. Without resolving this ambiguity, you cannot develop a falsifiable hypothesis. @BeanAnimal does not need a biology degree to see these shortcomings.

The same holds true for exploring diversity and biome development. These concepts are ambiguous and potentially refer to extremely large systems that are unlikely amenable to simple studies. It is naive to think that hobby experiments will provide much insight into such complex systems. Again, you do not need a degree in biology to see there are many missing pieces in your first post.

And here is where the potential usefulness of the discussion and input for correcting incomplete thinking were derailed. When BeanAnimal asked you questions, it was an attempt to have you go through your logic and discover some of the shortcomings I have outlined. Moreover, you continually refuse to defend or further articulate your assumptions, ideas and concepts to help move the discussion along. All this is obvious to anyone that reads your threads.

You haven’t demonstrated that the concept is flawed.

What you have argued is that some terms are broad, difficult to quantify or not yet operational defined. Those are not the same thing!

I would still be interested in understanding what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you are drawing upon when making those assessments.