Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 67,369
- Reaction score
- 63,708
OK, I know that's a provocative title, but hear me out.
From many, many discussions I have had with reefers over the past 25 years, it is clear to me that many folks easily accept ideas that mesh with their experience, and strongly reject those that do not.
Unfortunately, this reliance on personal experience can blind people to real facts.
Suppose I made this claim:
And suppose that you used that same product with no issue with the same coral. In fact, you know of six other reefers who used it and who did not experience that problem with the same coral.
What is your most likely thought on reading my claim? Be honest....
My contention is that one should, if possible:
1. Look to see if the claim that Product Y kills a coral is consistent with generally accepted scientific facts. If it is (say, it contains possible known toxins like nickel), I might be more likely to look into why there is a divergence of results. In a reef tank, it is obvious what many of these differences are, ranging from testing errors to different husbandry techniques to incorrectly identified species. Some of the important differences may be unknown at the time. For example, maybe Product Y binds to aluminum oxide phosphate binders, so tanks using this type of binder will never have an issue with it?
2. If the claim that Product Y kills a coral seems inconsistent with accepted scientific fact (say, it is diced chunks of shrimp), I might spend more time trying to determine why the death happened in the one tank more than why it didn't happen in others. Maybe the product was contaminated with a pathogenic bacteria?
Anyway, just food for thought, with a hope that folks might think about ways that your own experiences may not necessarily define the underlying "truth".
Happy Reefing.
From many, many discussions I have had with reefers over the past 25 years, it is clear to me that many folks easily accept ideas that mesh with their experience, and strongly reject those that do not.
Unfortunately, this reliance on personal experience can blind people to real facts.
Suppose I made this claim:
Product Y can kill corals. It killed my XXX coral.
And suppose that you used that same product with no issue with the same coral. In fact, you know of six other reefers who used it and who did not experience that problem with the same coral.
What is your most likely thought on reading my claim? Be honest....
That it doesn't kill corals and the coral died for some other reason?
That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell a competing product?
That maybe I dosed it wrong? (too much, wrong time of day, not enough mixing, whatever)
That the bottle I got might have been contaminated, especially if I used a DIY version?
That the coral was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.
Now suppose I ask exactly the same form of question with the same results and your same experiences, would you respond the same way?That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell a competing product?
That maybe I dosed it wrong? (too much, wrong time of day, not enough mixing, whatever)
That the bottle I got might have been contaminated, especially if I used a DIY version?
That the coral was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.
Smoking cigarettes can kill people. My sister died from lung cancer due to smoking.
But you smoke and are fine. In fact, everyone in your family smokes and is fine.
Do you likely conclude any of these things from your experiences?But you smoke and are fine. In fact, everyone in your family smokes and is fine.
That smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and my sister likely died for some other reason?
That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell cigarettes?
That maybe she smoked it wrong?
That the cigarettes she used might have been contaminated, especially if she rolled her own?
That she was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.
So what can one do with a range of results from different reefers that seem at odds with each other?That I am making it up, perhaps because I sell cigarettes?
That maybe she smoked it wrong?
That the cigarettes she used might have been contaminated, especially if she rolled her own?
That she was probably already stressed and easier to kill than usual?
etc.
My contention is that one should, if possible:
1. Look to see if the claim that Product Y kills a coral is consistent with generally accepted scientific facts. If it is (say, it contains possible known toxins like nickel), I might be more likely to look into why there is a divergence of results. In a reef tank, it is obvious what many of these differences are, ranging from testing errors to different husbandry techniques to incorrectly identified species. Some of the important differences may be unknown at the time. For example, maybe Product Y binds to aluminum oxide phosphate binders, so tanks using this type of binder will never have an issue with it?
2. If the claim that Product Y kills a coral seems inconsistent with accepted scientific fact (say, it is diced chunks of shrimp), I might spend more time trying to determine why the death happened in the one tank more than why it didn't happen in others. Maybe the product was contaminated with a pathogenic bacteria?
Anyway, just food for thought, with a hope that folks might think about ways that your own experiences may not necessarily define the underlying "truth".
Happy Reefing.
