What is science, and when its something proven?

[JonasRoman]

Hi guys, this is a subject far from a coral reef subject, but more in general. As the standard here at reef2reef is very high, I think its an interesting subject, especially as its possible to see similarities with my profession(surgeon) , where we always discuss "what is best, is it proven enough?".

Everything is about to search the truth, the best way, avoid the bad ways=getting a healthy and beatiful reef in your living room.

Actually we can see a few drawbacks in the research world, and ofcourse here aswell sometimes as this is also a scientific forum:
1) "If you dont have a study, its not proven". That argument minimise the power of experience. In a way experience and nature is always right, its just up to you to understand why. Reality and observation never lies, its just to understand what happens that is the challenge.
2) "You have a study, then its proven". This statement can be true if its a good study, but can be false if its a bad one. And we know, there are a lot of bad studies, more bad than good. Because many scientists have a hypothese and then try to prove it. They are biassed. Its human. But the best scientist do the opposite, you do a test and the truth is what it is. A result that is showing opposite what you thought is also knowledge. The biggest medical inventions (penicilin for instance) was detected in that "backward" way, you dont expect a result, and despite that it happens.
3) "You are not a scientist, just a hobbyist". Thats also not true. There is no occupation or examination that gives you the title scientist. All people that try to find out something on a serious way, is a scientist. We do that in different ways depending on our background.

This is nothing new, but good to have in mind when discuss. Lack of reserch articles doesnt mean its not true, and existence of an article doesnt always mean its true either. But ofcourse, its beatiful and the very best when you have a good performed study that explains the observational findings.

Sometimes we can read "there is no right or wrong". That is to minimise the power of experience and research work aswell. Ofcourse there is right and wrongs, thats why we are here. But, when there is several methods for one cure, that often mean none of them are perfect. There is still a right and wrong, its just that you havent found it yet.


Thanks for a very good forum, with a high scientific level and always good discussions with bilateral respect:-)


Jonas

 

[ReneReef]

Science is never 100% sure.

Generally, the world is extremely complex and scientist design very specific experiments to try and show how tiny specific bits of that system work.

Generalisation of the results of a single study to take conclusions regarding the overarching complex system is almost always impossible. It will need further research. What hypothesis should be tested next to gather the evidence needed to make the desired generalisation possible is a very nice constructive discussion to have.

Something may be considered proven if there is a large body of evidence (many different experiments under different conditions) AND a large group that agrees on the interpretation. That is why discussion is again so important. But that discussion can only happen at the level of evidence provided by the research.

For instance, if a study shows nitrate consumption induces oxidative stress. It is impossible to generalise to say the presence of nitrate in a complex system (like a reef aquarium) gives oxidative stress.
We can discuss if that interpretation is an overgeneralisation. But that discussion will go no where, there will never be agreement.
Discussing if that is a solid hypothesis and how to design an experiment to test it, that would be a constructive discussion moving towards increasing our knowledge.

If your not a scientist having the proper restraint keep interpretations within the limited meaning of evidence is difficult. Scientists often struggle with that to, because they believe in something and want to show the world.

P.S. I am a scientist and it is part of my daily work to analyse and evaluate research.

 

[JonasRoman]

AND a large group that agrees on the interpretation

This actually not always true, just because many agree doesnt mean its the truth. There are many examples of this. It could actually be the opposite, because there could be a common culture to agree because thats more easy and not uncomfortable, and you are not forced to continue work by proof the opposite. I do not say agreement is bad, but not always same as a good thing:-)

 

[JonasRoman]

Science is never 100% sure

Science can be 100% truth if it is 100% truth, the problem is to find it. Not everything is supercomplicated just because it is called science. But ofcourse, science is not always 100% truth, and that was actually my main message in the thread. Things can be truth even if you dont have a study. Experience is also science.

 

[JonasRoman]

Generalisation of the results of a single study to take conclusions regarding the overarching complex system is almost always impossible.

Agree, generalisation is not good, but conclusions are. Its not the same.

 

[JonasRoman]

For instance, if a study shows nitrate consumption induces oxidative stress. It is impossible to generalise to say the presence of nitrate in a complex system (like a reef aquarium) gives oxidative stress.

All sort of research are a sort of extrapolate of info at the end of the day. You cant investigate all scenarios, but you can investigare som major scenario. And its actually possible to draw conclusions based on that. Science is about possibility.

 

[Dan_P]

1) "If you dont have a study, its not proven". That argument minimise the power of experience. In a way experience and nature is always right, its just up to you to understand why. Reality and observation never lies, its just to understand what happens that is the challenge.

This idea might be conflating observation with assertion.

Aquarists make all sorts of observation which sre fun snd interesting.
Sometimes though they are distirtions of reality and it can take time to remove that distortion. There is no debate or challenge here, just questions and requests for more information.

After observations, assertions are made. I think this is where the challenges arise and the basis of the assertion is challenged. It is likely that a request for additional support, such as, a scientific study that validates part or all of the assertion. This is normal for technical subjects. Experience counts as support for the those who have expertise in the subject matter, though if the topic is of importance or is complex obtaining a second opinion or requesting a scientific study is acceptable.

You may have noticed that how assertions are made can determine whether the response is weak or strong. If the observation is distorted or incomplete and the assertion does not reflect this uncertainty, a very long and contentious thread can evolve. The issue is not about proving or not proving, it is arguing about the size of the disconnect from reality and the strength of the assertion saying the disconnect is real.

2) "You have a study, then its proven". This statement can be true if its a good study, but can be false if its a bad one. And we know, there are a lot of bad studies, more bad than good. Because many scientists have a hypothese and then try to prove it. They are biassed. Its human. But the best scientist do the opposite, you do a test and the truth is what it is. A result that is showing opposite what you thought is also knowledge. The biggest medical inventions (penicilin for instance) was detected in that "backward" way, you dont expect a result, and despite that it happens.

This idea is misleading. If you are involved in science or understand the scientific method, you are unlikely to hear or say that one study proves a hypothesis. A practicing scientist is aware that to sufficiently reduce the uncertainty about a hypothesis, not prove it, requires many studies

3) "You are not a scientist, just a hobbyist". Thats also not true. There is no occupation or examination that gives you the title scientist. All people that try to find out something on a serious way, is a scientist. We do that in different ways depending on our background.

This is a anti-authority idea. There is considerable discounting of expertise since the the creation and growth of the internet. It is true that a person not formally trained as a scientist could be a great scientist. It would also be rare.

Few people put in the effort to think and rigorously test ideas. People are basically lazy thinkers (observation, much scientific work here, not a judgement) and you should be skeptical of assertions made about technical topics.

 

[JonasRoman]

This idea is misleading. If you are involved in science or understand the scientific method, you are unlikely to hear or say that one study proves a hypothesis. A practicing scientist is aware that to sufficiently reduce the uncertainty about a hypothesis, not prove it, requires many studies

thats not the reality. Unfortunately, but in the best world you are correct. As i said, in my field there is thousands of study, congresse, lectures, posters. I can promise you, that openminded set you talk about is not always the reality. Unfortunately not. And I am sure that marin biology is not better humans.

 

[JonasRoman]

Few people put in the effort to think and rigorously test ideas. People are basically lazy thinkers (observation, much scientific work here, not a judgement) and you should be skeptical of assertions made about technical topics.

True, we think different depending in our background. For instance its a very common that someone post a pic on a healthy tank, and then its end of dicussion. That proves absolutely nothing. You could in such a case say "despite...the tank looks good". Such discussions are waste of time.

 

[ReneReef]

This idea might be conflating observation with assertion.

Aquarists make all sorts of observation which sre fun snd interesting.
Sometimes though they are distirtions of reality and it can take time to remove that distortion. There is no debate or challenge here, just questions and requests for more information.

After observations, assertions are made. I think this is where the challenges arise and the basis of the assertion is challenged. It is likely that a request for additional support, such as, a scientific study that validates part or all of the assertion. This is normal for technical subjects. Experience counts as support for the those who have expertise in the subject matter, though if the topic is of importance or is complex obtaining a second opinion or requesting a scientific study is acceptable.

You may have noticed that how assertions are made can determine whether the response is weak or strong. If the observation is distorted or incomplete and the assertion does not reflect this uncertainty, a very long and contentious thread can evolve. The issue is not about proving or not proving, it is arguing about the size of the disconnect from reality and the strength of the assertion saying the disconnect is real.



This idea is misleading. If you are involved in science or understand the scientific method, you are unlikely to hear or say that one study proves a hypothesis. A practicing scientist is aware that to sufficiently reduce the uncertainty about a hypothesis, not prove it, requires many studies



This is a anti-authority idea. There is considerable discounting of expertise since the the creation and growth of the internet. It is true that a person not formally trained as a scientist could be a great scientist. It would also be rare.

Few people put in the effort to think and rigorously test ideas. People are basically lazy thinkers (observation, much scientific work here, not a judgement) and you should be skeptical of assertions made about technical topics.

Spot on

 

[JonasRoman]

If the observation is distorted or incomplete and the assertion does not reflect this uncertainty, a very long and contentious thread can evolve

nothing bad with that. Knowledge often emanates from an extrapolation, which later can be truth or false. if you only have to say thing you are 100% certain then you kill the discussion and prolonge the process to get to the truth. We have an expression in sweden "high roof". I did a conclusion last days, right or wrong, doesnt matter, but got a rude answer from someone like "you say it as a truth". Its obvious that there is always a possibility to not be truth, we dont have to say that all time that also kills the debate. This is a hobby forum, so there is a risk we pretend being scientist. Some of us are at our original occupation, but not here.

 

[ReneReef]

This actually not always true, just because many agree doesnt mean its the truth. There are many examples of this. It could actually be the opposite, because there could be a common culture to agree because thats more easy and not uncomfortable, and you are not forced to continue work by proof the opposite. I do not say agreement is bad, but not always same as a good thing:-)

Truth is subjective. An opinion is always thrue because it is yours and yours to have. Many truths can exist at the same time. Most will not be generally excepted.

Something considered proven by a group does not mean it is considered that for all eternity. New insights can always change that what is considered proven. It is not static.

I wrote “something MAY be considered proven”. You are reading over nuance and framing my response more black and white than it is. That will derail a discussion.

Going further into a truth vs proof discussion is pointless.

Science can be 100% truth if it is 100% truth, the problem is to find it. Not everything is supercomplicated just because it is called science. But ofcourse, science is not always 100% truth, and that was actually my main message in the thread. Things can be truth even if you dont have a study. Experience is also science.

Stop digging down. This is going nowhere.

Again, going further into a truth vs proof discussion is pointless.

Agree, generalisation is not good, but conclusions are. Its not the same.

A conclusion can be a generalization.
You have made many generalizing conclusions recently.

All sort of research are a sort of extrapolate of info at the end of the day. You cant investigate all scenarios, but you can investigare som major scenario. And its actually possible to draw conclusions based on that. Science is about possibility.

Yes, seeing possibilities (possible explanations) is good. That is hypothsis generation.

Picking the one you like and presenting it as the final and ultimate insight will never work. That is not science. That is charlatan/quack territory.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Hi guys, this is a subject far from a coral reef subject, but more in general. As the standard here at reef2reef is very high, I think its an interesting subject, especially as its possible to see similarities with my profession(surgeon) , where we always discuss "what is best, is it proven enough?".

Everything is about to search the truth, the best way, avoid the bad ways=getting a healthy and beatiful reef in your living room.

Actually we can see a few drawbacks in the research world, and ofcourse here aswell sometimes as this is also a scientific forum:
1) "If you dont have a study, its not proven". That argument minimise the power of experience. In a way experience and nature is always right, its just up to you to understand why. Reality and observation never lies, its just to understand what happens that is the challenge.
2) "You have a study, then its proven". This statement can be true if its a good study, but can be false if its a bad one. And we know, there are a lot of bad studies, more bad than good. Because many scientists have a hypothese and then try to prove it. They are biassed. Its human. But the best scientist do the opposite, you do a test and the truth is what it is. A result that is showing opposite what you thought is also knowledge. The biggest medical inventions (penicilin for instance) was detected in that "backward" way, you dont expect a result, and despite that it happens.
3) "You are not a scientist, just a hobbyist". Thats also not true. There is no occupation or examination that gives you the title scientist. All people that try to find out something on a serious way, is a scientist. We do that in different ways depending on our background.

This is nothing new, but good to have in mind when discuss. Lack of reserch articles doesnt mean its not true, and existence of an article doesnt always mean its true either. But ofcourse, its beatiful and the very best when you have a good performed study that explains the observational findings.

Sometimes we can read "there is no right or wrong". That is to minimise the power of experience and research work aswell. Ofcourse there is right and wrongs, thats why we are here. But, when there is several methods for one cure, that often mean none of them are perfect. There is still a right and wrong, its just that you havent found it yet.


Thanks for a very good forum, with a high scientific level and always good discussions with bilateral respect:-)


Jonas

This reads like a broad defense of anecdote without addressing the specific reasons it has been challenged in the first place.

The problem is treating an observation as proof of an explanation for it, then demanding that anyone who disagrees prove the conclusion wrong. That is burden shift by any other name.

You say observations never lie, but interpretation of an observation can be wrong. Hobbyists can be biased, just as researchers can. Either way, evidence should be something others can examine and challenge.

What I see here is an argument for being able to cite studies when they support a claim, but the convenience of questioning the value of studies when the limits of a conclusion are pointed out. The same standard has to apply to both sides and to one's own experience.

This is the pattern I keep objecting to throughout these “scientific discussions” here at R2R. A broad claim is made, someone challenges it, and the claim narrows or moves to a different point without acknowledging what was wrong with the original. Stacked claims and moving goalposts make the position resistant to disproof. Contrary observations are misunderstood, contrary studies are flawed, and a challenged claim becomes a narrower one and salient points are ignored or reframed. This thread has already taken that shape, as an extension of prior threads that did as well. Dan and Rene made valid points about the difference between observations and conclusions that have been sidestepped as the discussion expands into new arguments.

So here you are recasting objections as the problem by complaining about how others judge evidence, rather than addressing the actual claims they challenged. We are now debating process and standing, not the claims. Calling that a search for truth does not resolve the claims or objections; it merely sidesteps them for a new argument.

Making claims is fine, but doing so requires being willing to correct your own claims as readily as you question everyone else’s. The burden of supporting a claim falls on the person making it. It cannot be shifted to critics as a way to avoid addressing their objections.

 

[Dan_P]

True, we think different depending in our background. For instance its a very common that someone post a pic on a healthy tank, and then its end of dicussion. That proves absolutely nothing. You could in such a case say "despite...the tank looks good". Such discussions are waste of time.

I was referring to the fact that humans like using intuition more than logic and that is not a cultural phenomenon. When discussing technical topics and ideas, intuition is not a reliable approach for achieving understanding.

 

[JonasRoman]

This reads like a broad defense of anecdote without addressing the specific reasons it has been challenged in the first place.

The problem is treating an observation as proof of an explanation for it, then demanding that anyone who disagrees prove the conclusion wrong. That is burden shift by any other name.

You say observations never lie, but interpretation of an observation can be wrong. Hobbyists can be biased, just as researchers can. Either way, evidence should be something others can examine and challenge.

What I see here is an argument for being able to cite studies when they support a claim, but the convenience of questioning the value of studies when the limits of a conclusion are pointed out. The same standard has to apply to both sides and to one's own experience.

This is the pattern I keep objecting to throughout these “scientific discussions” here at R2R. A broad claim is made, someone challenges it, and the claim narrows or moves to a different point without acknowledging what was wrong with the original. Stacked claims and moving goalposts make the position resistant to disproof. Contrary observations are misunderstood, contrary studies are flawed, and a challenged claim becomes a narrower one and salient points are ignored or reframed. This thread has already taken that shape, as an extension of prior threads that did as well. Dan and Rene made valid points about the difference between observations and conclusions that have been sidestepped as the discussion expands into new arguments.

So here you are recasting objections as the problem by complaining about how others judge evidence, rather than addressing the actual claims they challenged. We are now debating process and standing, not the claims. Calling that a search for truth does not resolve the claims or objections; it merely sidesteps them for a new argument.

Making claims is fine, but doing so requires being willing to correct your own claims as readily as you question everyone else’s. The burden of supporting a claim falls on the person making it. It cannot be shifted to critics as a way to avoid addressing their obj

I was referring to the fact that humans like using intuition more than logic and that is not a cultural phenomenon. When discussing technical topics and ideas, intuition is not a reliable approach for achieving understanding.

Define intuition? In my job (surgery) you make a lot of decisions based on what you can call intuition, but thats just our description on that brain process extremely a lot of data based on what you know, experienced, mistakes, successful things etc. So its definitely a tool to "achieve understanding"
This is what I mean by using "only studies accepted" as a wrong weapon in an argumentation.
I am working in a field where this is the truth and common.
I realise there could be culture differences in how we see on science based on some answers here.
We have discussed 2 studies that together gives us clear indications that nitrate is a stress factor. The first one not 100 conclusive as temp was not an isolated factor. But actually as the last studie was, those together gives us reason to establish that nitrate is a stress factor, and hence definitely question recommended ideal no3 intervals.

Its up to those who claim unnatural values to defense now, not those who believe natural values are good to go, especially not with this science in background.

Good night

 

[Privateye]

1) "If you dont have a study, its not proven". That argument minimise the power of experience. In a way experience and nature is always right, its just up to you to understand why. Reality and observation never lies, its just to understand what happens that is the challenge.

This is sort of true in a way, but not always. We're talking about two different scenarios within science. The definition of science is inseparable from the scientific method. Formulating a hypothesis, designing a study that minimizes other variables, etc...but not everything can be formally tested. That's where scientific theories come into play. (By definition, these are not the same as regular "theories".) These are things that cannot be formally tested, but have immense observable evidence. Evolution is a theory because we can't realistically design an experiment to test for evolution. It's still true - we just know it from observation and tangential studies (e.g. genetics and heritability) instead of putting a species on an island and watching for changes over 100,000 years.

When we're characterizing a new species, type of organ, or other biological feature these are simply put into a scientific paper. There is no experiment needed - just describe the thing for the scientific community. Statistical power isn't really a factor when you're just saying "this subject exhibited this behavior and, upon examination we found a lesion in this part of the brain" for example.

So there are instances where observation is indeed formal science. When we're able to apply the scientific method it makes our claims stronger though. It helps avoid teleology. That's where one uses logic to draw conclusions or connections instead of fact. Similar to the "correlation does not equal causation" quote we hear in the sciences, but a philosophical version.

Observation doesn't lie, but a person's interpretation definitely can.

 

[Dan_P]

Its up to those who claim unnatural values to defense now, not those who believe natural values are good to go, especially not with this science in background.

Good night

I am not going back to a previous post to reopen the debate when we are in the middle of discussing the assertions in this post. Best if we stay focused here.

@BeanAnimal has made valid points about your assertions that I thought you might address.

By intuition, I meant the thought process where you quickly make a decision or create an assertion and then spend time explaining why you did. For example, if someone thinks nitrate concentration is very important, they will spend their time trying to explain why they think this and looking for references that support their intuition. The question to which effort should be applied might be “under what condition is nitrate concentration important in a reef aquarium”.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Define intuition? In my job (surgery) you make a lot of decisions based on what you can call intuition, but thats just our description on that brain process extremely a lot of data based on what you know, experienced, mistakes, successful things etc. So its definitely a tool to "achieve understanding"
This is what I mean by using "only studies accepted" as a wrong weapon in an argumentation.
I am working in a field where this is the truth and common.
I realise there could be culture differences in how we see on science based on some answers here.
We have discussed 2 studies that together gives us clear indications that nitrate is a stress factor. The first one not 100 conclusive as temp was not an isolated factor. But actually as the last studie was, those together gives us reason to establish that nitrate is a stress factor, and hence definitely question recommended ideal no3 intervals.

Its up to those who claim unnatural values to defense now, not those who believe natural values are good to go, especially not with this science in background.

Good night

Building on Dan's response. He didn’t say experience has no value or that only studies count. Making a judgment call in surgery based on training and experience is different from using intuition to establish why a coral responded to nitrate in an experiment. One is a judgment call and the other is an explanation that must be supported.

In context to the nitrate discussion, the studies show what happened to those corals under specific conditions. The experiment controlled those conditions. The results do not establish what happens outside those conditions. Therefore, the experiment does not show that nitrate is harmful simply because it is present in a reef tank under reef tank conditions. Calling higher nitrate “unnatural” does not prove that claim and it certainly does not shift the burden to those questioning it.

But let’s go there. Unnatural compared to what? We had this discussion in your alkalinity thread, where you argued that a level close to natural seawater was “best”, mostly because it was natural. You then offered observations from your tank as support that "natural" is best". When I asked what “best” meant, you compared recognizing a healthy coral to a doctor recognizing that someone is not sick. That does not show that natural alkalinity caused the health you observed, or establish that it is best in other tanks. It is again, conflating observation with causation. That was shifted to various attributes that you argue are "better" because they are the attributes found in nature. It is circular. What works in nature is driven by survival. In a reef tank, we may choose growth, color, resilience, ease of care or any other number of goals. A natural value is not automatically the best value for those goals.

It is the same reasoning here. You start with natural values as the right answer, treat your observations as confirmation, and then put the burden on people who recommend something else to prove your claim wrong. Instead of proving your claim right, you say those who go against nature must prove themselves, because they are going against nature. It is circular. The issue is that “natural” is not a measure of what works best in a reef tank. Best for which outcome: growth, color, resilience, ease of maintenance, or something else?