Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

[HankstankXXL750]

I don't need Google I have a wife that knows everything.

We are the opposite.

 

[Canadianreefmaster]

This has always been an issue with this hobby. This Same question was asked decades ago on forums. It is Most commonly noted with fish/coral. Someone may have kept 1 single fish specimen of a species for 10 Years successfully; yet that's one fish. Whereas, someone may have kept 30 or 40 of them for various periods over 20 years; demonstrating a fish with very different ecological demands. People will accept the view of the person with the 1 fish. (Simply because they saw that person post 546 picture of that single fish on Instagram).

Now this is just an example with livestock.. it applys to chemistry as well. And most significantly lately with antibiotics and coral dips (neglecting basic biology and chemsitry regarding them).

As with any science experience is a basis for hypothesis. But they must be assessed for the null. And test this hypothesis (using strong hypothesis). It's best to look at the ecology and biology of species/coral to gain reliable information. Take others opinions and experience; however, look to the scientific data.

The worst place for reef pseudoscienceis due to YouTube influencers with short term and limited experience. Saying this If you Wana see how to frag hammer and Torch coral check out my YouTube ; @Canadianreefmaster

Look for the biologists/scientist and specialists with a good grasp on the science of the reef; with long term quantable experience. And talk to the reef shops for their experiences and what other reefers difficulties or successes are.

Make your own opinions and try it.. don't be scared to make mistakes. You may learn something wonderful. Share your experiences. Someone will always disagree.. that's ok. It drives research.

 

[jabberwock]

This has always been an issue with this hobby. This Same question was asked decades ago on forums. It is Most commonly noted with fish/coral. Someone may have kept 1 single fish specimen of a species for 10 Years successfully; yet that's one fish. Whereas, someone may have kept 30 or 40 of them for various periods over 20 years; demonstrating a fish with very different ecological demands. People will accept the view of the person with the 1 fish. (Simply because they saw that person post 546 picture of that single fish on Instagram).

Now this is just an example with livestock.. it applys to chemistry as well. And most significantly lately with antibiotics and coral dips (neglecting basic biology and chemsitry regarding them).

As with any science experience is a basis for hypothesis. But they must be assessed for the null. And test this hypothesis (using strong hypothesis). It's best to look at the ecology and biology of species/coral to gain reliable information. Take others opinions and experience; however, look to the scientific data.

The worst place for reef pseudoscienceis due to YouTube influencers with short term and limited experience. Saying this If you Wana see how to frag hammer and Torch coral check out my YouTube ; @Canadianreefmaster

Look for the biologists/scientist and specialists with a good grasp on the science of the reef; with long term quantable experience. And talk to the reef shops for their experiences and what other reefers difficulties or successes are.

Make your own opinions and try it.. don't be scared to make mistakes. You may learn something wonderful. Share your experiences. Someone will always disagree.. that's ok. It drives research.

Uhm, the fact that you reference Instagram leads me to believe that your decades of experience = < long term? And you said "quantable". What is that?

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Uhm, the fact that you reference Instagram leads me to believe that your decades of experience = < long term? And you said "quantable". What is that?

So now you're discriminating based on someone's age and/or choice of social media platforms??
(And you said "uhm". What is that?)

@Canadianreefmaster, you present some good points

 

[jabberwock]

So now you're discriminating based on someone's age and/or choice of social media platforms??
(And you said "uhm". What is that?)

@Canadianreefmaster, you present some good points

Yes, yes and yes. I reckon you are about 51 years old? Same as me. I reserve the right to discriminate.

 

[rennjidk]

Just a reminder to folks to be sure to keep politics and religion out of this discussion.

I understand this thread may directly relate to some political and religious topics, but such comments are against the REEF2REEF terms of service and risks the thread being locked or moved out of view.

In the vaguest of terms, the overlap in this hobby between people actually interested in marine biology and the science of reefing, vs those with too much money to spend is widening exponentially. A reef tank is the new sports car, and now we have 11 page arguments about what constitutes "actual science" anytime someone brings up the topic. Thank you for taking time out of your day to answer our questions. You're the hero we need, just not the one we deserve.

 

[WVNed]

Which is why I asked it as a question. I have done all those same things. My phone was even rotary lol.

I have always been a dabbler in things. Many different things. Wiring diagrams. Old tool or equipment manuals. Reviews of things that are no longer made. A net search no longer finds much. Just an enormous number of offers to buy something from someplace I never heard of.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yeah, good point.

Can you engineer a reset of this discussion to get us back on track? We kinda took a side track that seemed to focus on showing established science on a topic isn’t flawless, the last word, flawed, not so hot, etc and that seemed to lead to, well, a lot more off trackedness

Since we like to argue, can we try to have structured battles, I mean debates? Something like “give it your best shot“ at arguing why a hobby tenet is or is not “true” or “useful”. A tenet or provisional explanation would be put out for comment for limited time and then a vote on which side wins. It might take the place of Randy’s question of the day. We could start with “why is the Redfield ratio so important in establishing and maintaining a healthy reef aquarium? I have more ideas if you run out.

“ In debate, our goal should be to learn and grow both in skill and personal maturity ” why do you feel that we should include politics in a hobby that is supposed to be fun and stress free? As I see it, the suggestion is just a way to try and force views on to others.

let’s imagine that there is a debate bare bottom vs sand and the bare bottom wins, what do you expect to happen after that?
put it into law, no more tanks with sand and if someone has sand will have to remove it to be able to continue being part of the community? Is that what you are suggesting we go toward.

let’s imagine Randy wins this debate and science wins over personal observations and experience, should we mock or do sarcastic comments to anyone that shares they’re personal experience or observations from here on?

starting to sound like authoritarian yet?

 

[Dan_P]

“ In debate, our goal should be to learn and grow both in skill and personal maturity ” why do you feel that we should include politics in a hobby that is supposed to be fun and stress free?

You are welcome to your views, difference of opinion, world view, etc., though you are wrong about the politics comment.

As I see it, the suggestion is just a way to try and force views on to others.

You do not see too well.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You are welcome to your views, difference of opinion, world view, etc., though you are wrong about the politics comment.



You do not see too well.

You see, this is we’re I struggle, one comment suggest that I’m welcome to my views and the other doesn’t.
Does this insinuate that my views are only welcome if it’s aligned with others commonly acceptable thought?

 

[MartinM]

Absolutely true - compare what peer-reviewed science there is on coral propagation, aquaculture, lighting, etc and it’s dramatically different from anecdotal hobby ‘knowledge’ (That being said, there is no incentive to research most aspects of the hobby, I know).

Example: For 2 years I’ve fed my goniopora at night and maintain them under 200 PAR of full spectrum light with a 12 hour photoperiod that’s much whiter than what is typically used in the USA now and they grow quickly (about 100-150% size increase per year). Come to find out, researchers at a university in Taiwan have discovered that 1) Goniopora sp. cannot feed without light and 2) They grow significantly better under 400-470nm light than any other spectrums and 3) they grow fastest under 60 par with a 6 hour photoperiod. So, the success I’ve been experiencing is not entirely because of the reasons I thought, and is largely attributed to the adaptability of the coral rather than optimum conditions.

 

[MartinM]

I would disagree. Google has replaced the encyclopedia in modern times. However you do have to practice due diligence. If an article sites references you can then search them to see the validity of the statements.

And most reefing questions actually direct you to R2R. That is how I found R2R to start with. After reading post after post for information, I decided to join. I have found the information so valuable that I got a paid membership and then a partner membership so that this resource will be available for others as well.

Careful - Google doesn’t show you the “internet” - it shows you a highly personalized, belief-reinforcing version of the internet optimized to make the most profit from you possible. To do this, it’s pulling in data from absolutely everything you do (data sharing agreements across every major corporation and privacy policies allow this to happen, perfectly legally). So if there’s something you believe and Google knows that, it’s highly likely Google will show it to you, accurate or not.

 

[HankstankXXL750]

Careful - Google doesn’t show you the “internet” - it shows you a highly personalized, belief-reinforcing version of the internet optimized to make the most profit from you possible. To do this, it’s pulling in data from absolutely everything you do (data sharing agreements across every major corporation and privacy policies allow this to happen, perfectly legally). So if there’s something you believe and Google knows that, it’s highly likely Google will show it to you, accurate or not.

As I have stated and re-enforced, that is why you have to verify what you find. I skip sponsored and move on down the page/pages to find information. And also do not rely on only one article or source.

 

[MartinM]

As I have stated and re-enforced, that is why you have to verify what you find. I skip sponsored and move on down the page/pages to find information. And also do not rely on only one article or source.

Always good. But organic results are filtered and shown utilizing the same methodology as the paid results, if you didn’t know. Scholar is less prone, although that’s another can of worms

 

[HankstankXXL750]

Always good. But organic results are filtered and shown utilizing the same methodology as the paid results, if you didn’t know. Scholar is less prone, although that’s another can of worms

I worry less about reef searches as not a lot of cross info to draw from other parts of my life than say news or politics.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Even though I'm sure most folks know it, I thought I'd point out that instead of searching the internet overall, one can use google scholar if you want to see scientific publications, most of which have some peer review or quality control over claims made in them.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

I know when I was in college and had to do research papers, google scholar was always the place to go. It helped me formulate a more unbiased opinion regarding whatever I was researching instead of doing a quick google search of whatever I was trying to research.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Even though I'm sure most folks know it, I thought I'd point out that instead of searching the internet overall, one can use google scholar if you want to see scientific publications, most of which have some peer review or quality control over claims made in them.

That's good to know Randy. Thanks. All I need now is an interpreter. Those things are written in some language I can't decipher! I looks like English until you start to read it, the it morphs into some sort of alien text.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Trying to get this thread back to the original focus, let me take a random specific example from Reef2Reef where personal experiences are portrayed in a fashion that seems contrary to established science.

OP:
I've been using Brightwell Aquatics Kalk+2 as a secondary dosing method on top of my 2 part system. I dose Kalk+2 as a topoff through my kalkreactor, and I must say it has worked very well. I just wanted to get some feedback from other people who are using it.

Various positive responses followed, including:

Love it...really good stuff....only thing i have noticed over a long period of use is that my MG started creeping up really high to 1550-1600. So, what I do now is I just use any high quality Kalk mix (currently 2 little fishes) and every 3rd or 4th batch I switch back to BW K +2. That seems to keep the MG from taking off like it was.

Regular kalk doesn't contain magnesium hydroxide or strontium hydroxide

I use it. I can't use it everyday though. It jumped my Mg up to 1700 so I use it in my kalk drip 3 times a week now. the rest of the time I just use Ms. Wages pickling lime.

It isn't until years later that some science is brought to bear on the claims about magnesium in this thread.

The two huge problematic science issues are:

1. Even accepting the incorrect idea that all of the magnesium in the product ends up in the aquarium, there is hardly any there. Brightwell gives a "Guaranteed" magneisum percentage, and extrapolating that to a year of dosing it to add 1 dKH per day, the magneisum added is only 7 ppm. Thus, there's no way that the thread participants were getting so much magnesium that it was actually pushing magnesium too high from this additive alone.

2. Magnesium is very poorly soluble at the pH of kalkwasser, both by well established scientific studies, and by my own published measurements of magnesium in lime. It precipitates out as magnesium hydroxide. At kalkwassser pH, magnesium is about one million times less soluble than calcium hydroxide, so the magnesium content of clear limewater will be one million times lower than the calcium content. Thus, if you add 10 ppm of calcium per day, in a year you'd have added far less than 1 ppm of magnesium.


Now, if you take the approach I proposed in the first post in this thread, what would one do?

Spend some time trying to figure out why these folks got a result that seems inconsistent with the science of this product.

No one is suggesting ignoring someone who says they have very high magnesium, but, of course, there may be many explanations for it. Test error, salt mixes with high magnesium, Brightwell not selling what they claim, etc.

But the opposite approach, that one should accept these experiences as a true indication of what the product does and ignore that it conflicts with established science does not, IMO, seem to be a useful approach.

For folks interested in the details in the original thread, it is here:

Who's Using BW Kalk+2?

I've been using Brightwell Aquatics Kalk+2 as a secondary dosing method on top of my 2 part system. I dose Kalk+2 as a topoff through my kalkreactor, and I must say it has worked very well. I just wanted to get some feedback from other people who are using it.

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Hans-Werner]

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....

Almost any product can kill corals if used wrong, for example being overdosed. The first question would be, how was it used?

But this is not the point I want to make. The headline was "Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth". What do I read in this headline?

Relying on personal experience usually means, "this complies with my personal experience or it does not". Yes or no, right or wrong. This is the personal approach.

What in my eyes differs most in the scientific approach is, that it is not about right or wrong first hand. Science is a method or a tool that is searching for the perfect explanation. Usually it is a approximation to the perfect explanation. Since science goes on, the approximation is getting closer and closer to perfection. What is important, is that usually better explanations are based on other, good explanations.

So the scientific approach would be, "maybe, but how can it be explained?". ... at least this is how I understand it. And here it differs from the personal experience. Personal experience is descriptive in a different way. It is not based on other, already very sophisticated descriptions, as science is. And science has more advanced tools none of us aquarium hobbyists or professionals can use.

For example science can get out whether in a certain constellation an enzyme is induced or inhibited and in this way makes a biochemical reaction possible or blocks it. None of us does, I think.

For example uptake of nutrients is also a kind of enzymatic reaction and uptake follows certain kinetics. Science can explain the kinetics with half saturation constants etc.. Science can explain which uptake mechanisms are induced and which ones are permanent.

For example science can follow chemical reactions that take place in the ground, using special probes.

Nearly everyone today has access to scientific knowledge, for example by using a google scholar search. With this scientific background knowledge you can try to find an explanation of personal experience that is maybe far from perfect but maybe good or at least better than previous explanations. In this way personal experience remains not merely "right or wrong", but may get an explanation why it worked the way it worked (or didn't). And maybe the best is, using this tool is not limited to scientists anymore. Everyone can at least try to find a better explanation, and a lot of people here try ...

And while scientists are getting better in keeping corals, hobbyists and aquarium professionals are getting better in searching for explanations. This is a competition both sides benefit.