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

[Mark Gray]

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:

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?

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?

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?

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.

​

OMG Randy you are getting old, 25 year talking to reefers. [ Joking ] love this post. I am stepping of the subject a little but read on. I am in Indonesia right now, I have been having bad uper back problems. I had the opportunity to meet a man they call Grandpa he is 103 year old Sensei, chiropractor I will see him again tomorrow. The man smokes and drinks coffee like no one's business. My back is much better and I am posting a picture of my fat self and Grandpa. Tell me if you think he looks 103.

 

[rennjidk]

OMG Randy you are getting old, 25 year talking to reefers. [ Joking ] love this post. I am stepping of the subject a little but read on. I am in Indonesia right now, I have been having bad uper back problems. I had the opportunity to meet a man they call Grandpa he is 103 year old Sensei, chiropractor I will see him again tomorrow. The man smokes and drinks coffee like no one's business. My back is much better and I am posting a picture of my fat self and Grandpa. Tell me if you think he looks 103.

The irony of this response in regards to the post title is overwhelming.

 

[Bruce Burnett]

I read some other sites that are mostly newbies that went out and purchased a tank, lights, skimmers ect all from the same manufacturer and then ask questions that they really should have researched before they even purchased. The answer they get are sometime so far out and cause more problems. I usually respond by telling them to research, buy some books and then do more research online including this site. Stay open minded and don't rush. Some things are facts and some stated as fact may not apply to your own tank. I like the stories Chemi-clean does not work, it kills fish, it kills corals. Then you have others say it works and never had a coral or fish die from it. Obviously people have used it and had stuff die and others used it and did not. I have used it and no problem it did what it was supposed to do.

 

[Mortgaged Reefs]

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:

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?

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?

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?

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.

​

Always great articles that make you think. Thank you for all you do for our reefing community. You are a legend sir!

 

[jabberwock]

I read some other sites that are mostly newbies that went out and purchased a tank, lights, skimmers ect all from the same manufacturer and then ask questions that they really should have researched before they even purchased. The answer they get are sometime so far out and cause more problems. I usually respond by telling them to research, buy some books and then do more research online including this site. Stay open minded and don't rush. Some things are facts and some stated as fact may not apply to your own tank. I like the stories Chemi-clean does not work, it kills fish, it kills corals. Then you have others say it works and never had a coral or fish die from it. Obviously people have used it and had stuff die and others used it and did not. I have used it and no problem it did what it was supposed to do.

This is why Googling the internet is not research.

 

[HankstankXXL750]

This is why Googling the internet is not research.

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.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It’s a interesting topic that should be taken with a pinch of salt.
We often forget that R2R is primarily a community made for folks in the hobby to interact with each others, share opinions and personal experiences that is normally part of the fun. On here we discuss, debate and share our opinions in several aspects of the hobby from filtration equipment to what’s my favourite fish. Most of the topics don’t rely on scientific knowledge or a degree in engineering to participate and interact with each others.

I believe the rise in authoritarianism towards most engagements on threads, were someone is sharing they’re views or personal observations and suffering personal attacks shameful and detrimental to the forum, we went from a community of hobbies folks to a community of only scientists can participate. Don’t take me wrong I believe having expert knowledge is great for the hobby although if we are censoring discussion and losing the fun side of it it will affect the forum altogether.
In addition many experts also tend to fall for the same mistakes we do, wend folks are advised to raise nutrients to avoid dinoflagellates that advice is not based on scientific studies is based on hobby folks observation that low nutrient may give you dinoflagellates.

@Randy Holmes-Farley Please accept my heartfelt condolence for your loss

 

[Paul B]

I think you have a narrow and incorrect view of what science is and can do, supported by a ludicrous fake anecdote.

Actually Randy I don't think so (but many of my anecdotes are ludicrous)

I love science and it was my favorite subject. I am a compulsive reader and read mostly science books and magazines. Marine biology, astronomy, physics, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy etc.
I really like science fiction but can separate the two.

I said many times you are probably the smartest guy on these forums. It is not scientists I feel have a narrow view. It's the companies that pay them. Scientists and medical researchers are doing a job and normally working for a company that makes money for producing a product. They don't make money studying things for no reason.

You are a chemist. Does someone pay you to study certain things or can you work on whatever you like?

If the researcher is working for a tuna company like Starkist, they are studying only tuna and only to farm the fish to make it grow faster and fatter. They don't have to look into if the tuna lives to it's natural lifespan or spawns. The company needs to make money so they pay the guys to work on just those issues. They won't research squid.

I brought up MS researchers because my wife has it so we have been invited to neurologist conferences all the time for the last 25 years. They work for pharmaceutical companies which arguably make a lot of money.

My wife gives herself a shot monthly which costs about $16,000.00 for each shot. The company that produces that shot makes a lot of money and they don't even know how or why the shot works. They just know that in tests the people taking that shot go longer without an exacerbation than control people. Thats great but there are a dozen or so companies making similar "vaccines" and none of them know how or why it works and none of them work very well.

Thats fine as long as it slows the progression. But none of those companies or scientists are seeing if combining those therapies would be beneficial because that would be a conflict of interest so who would pay for it? Mobil doesn't work with Exxon to find a gas that gives better mileage or smell better.

Few companies or researchers are searching for a cure either as cures stop companies from making money. Look at all the cancer treatments, but have you ever seen it cured? We don't cure it, we cut off the part of the body that is cancerous and sometimes we need those parts.

I can't think of one disease that has been "cured" in my lifetime, and I am going to be 74 Christmas. (Cured, not slowed or caused disfigurement)

So, to me anyway, much science research is like tunnel vision and I can see where it has to be because of a profit margin.

To get back to this thread I said I rely on experience more than science because experience of a layman, not someone getting paid for this is unlimited and can go in many directions with no restrictions from anyone paying us. Scientists are doing a job for a company and that company expects profits, not "interesting" facts so we need to learn from many different scientists studying different things related to (in our case) fish.

So yes of course we need scientists. We would not have planes, space shuttles, medicines or many other things without them.

Galileo was a scientist but worked on his own from his own curiosity to come up with devices that would make him and his family money. No one paid him to research so he came up with numerous inventions.
He studied speed, inertia, velocity, free fall, pendulums, hydrostatic balances, etc. And he invented the thermoscope, telescope, military compases and a variety of other non related things.

So scientists of his time had no restrictions as scientists working for companies today have.
So, yes, I stand by what I posted above. But I still love you Randy even though we disagree on almost everything.

I am good friends with Humblefish and we also disagree on almost everything.

It doesn't make us wrong, just different.

 

[landlubber]

this is just what the internet is to a certain segment of people. Its an opportunity to use an open forum to profess being "right" and its more important than being factually correct.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Let's face it none of us are going to live long enough to see settled science in many areas.

My dad was a physician and a leading cancer researcher in his day. Due to his research physicians moved from believing drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes was healthful to harmful. The warnings on a pack of cigarettes were as far as the research would move the needle with the government in his lifetime. The government helped fund continuing studies with the American Cancer Society and others but would not end tobacco price supports for tobacco farmers. So no matter the science in this case policy was very slow to change.

I watched the same thing during the policy claims of settled science early on in the pandemic. Epidemiology in that case is not settled until data is compiled yet policy makers tried to claim settled science and actively doxed and silenced those who asked to many questions or raised objections. That is not how science is supposed to work. Now the CDC has reported that the majority of infections is among the vaccinated not the un-vaccinated. This fact should promote investigation into the effectiveness of the therapy should it not? I am not against vaccines as I have benefitted from many in my life but this pandemic was used as an experiment across-the-board. Did you not read the release form when you were vaccinated? Did you not notice the Congress passing a law to prevent the vaccine companies from liability? Since when has that happened in my lifetime? I can't recall that happening before a vaccine was delivered and studied through human trials of longer periods of time, The current variants are not affected by current therapy and are able to side step the short term immunity of the current vaccines. The term therapy is probably better than vaccine at this point.

We all need to be advocates for or own health now days more than ever. The same applies to the health of our pets and aquariums. So each one of us has to form our husbandry practices from all the product claims and information overload we are hit with every day. That requires the scientific method or depending on the copying of successful methods around us until the science is settled. It was not long ago we in the aquarium industry believed that the water around reefs were nutrient depleted. Now we realize the vast amount of nutrients within the water column via bacteria, viruses, and protists. This is potentially the food web we were missing in cultivating our small reef systems. Just that revelation sent many product companies down different paths. The advent of artificial reef rock seems to reduce the success we experience when using actual live rock from the ocean. Perhaps, this is how we developed some success in the past and introduced some of the food web into our aquariums. I will allow the science to mature on that until we have an answer. Until then I will continue to use live rock because it has worked across dozens and dozens of replicated systems for me and many customers. I have observed good and repeated results using this method. But I am open to what we might learn in the future!

I hope no one is upset by my using current observations about the pandemic. It is not my intention but it does provide a thought provoking example.

Have a great day all and thanks for the discussion!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Few companies or researchers are searching for a cure either as cures stop companies from making money. Look at all the cancer treatments, but have you ever seen it cured? We don't cure it, we cut off the part of the body that is cancerous and sometimes we need those parts.

This post is offensive in the extreme, and I'm not even going to address how ignorant it is.

To think companies don't want to find a cure to disease because they won't make money off it is utterly ridiculous.

 

[WVNed]

Lots of things are ignorant and offensive on here. When I point them out my posts get deleted. I am on a German Shepherd forum. Someone complained a post was about violence and should be deleted. The forum has a whole section on dog sports and training to teach dogs to attack people.

I am running on irony overload these days.

As for Google searches. I have used them for a long time. The internet indexing is so shoddy now that not much comes up that is useful. I wish I had the books I gave away.

 

[WVNed]

These threads are good for bringing out the Fox News viewers. Just in time for Festivus. Serenity now!

See, here is an offensive post now.

OO, please explain to us what this means.

 

[Paul B]

To think companies don't want to find a cure to disease because they won't make money off it is utterly ridiculous.

OK, it is what it is. Treatment makes an enormous profit for the rest of the patients life. A cure, which rarely happens makes money for a limited time.

I know "some" companies are working on a cure, but the money is in treatment. Thats my opinion as ignorant as my "opinion" seems to be to you. I disagree with some things you suggest but I don't think I ever felt or said they were ignorant. I am pretty sure I always answered you with respect.

These threads are good for bringing out the Fox News viewers. Just in time for Festivus. Serenity now!

And I am a Fox News viewer as many combat Vets are.

 

[mattdg]

The second I get cocky and start to think I've seen it all... my reef throws me for a loop. If you need help being humbled... this is the hobby for you.

 

[Miami Reef]

@Randy Holmes-Farley Please accept my heartfelt condolence for your loss

What does this even mean? I didn’t see anywhere in this thread that he lost someone??

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Now the CDC has reported that the majority of infections is among the vaccinated not the un-vaccinated. This fact should promote investigation into the effectiveness of the therapy should it not?

I have seen analyses of that, and it is EXACTLY what is expected when most people in general, and an even higher proportion of high risk people are vaccinated.

The vaccine is not being given to prevent infection, it is being given to reduce the chances of problematic symptoms and hospitalization and death. It does those things well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What does this even mean? I didn’t see anywhere in this thread that he lost someone??

Im not sure. No recent tragedies here.

 

[WVNed]

The second I get cocky and start to think I've seen it all... my reef throws me for a loop. If you need help being humbled... this is the hobby for you.

No truer statement is possible.

 

[Miami Reef]

Im not sure. No recent tragedies here.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he took your analogy/example literally…

Now suppose I ask exactly the same form of question with the same results and your same experiences, would you respond the same way?

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.

This was from the OP.