Weekly Discussion - Science

[clarionreef]

Three years ago...
James Cervino proved that cyanide kills coral and published the results in scientific journal.
23 years ago, I made the assertion that it killed corals from direct eye-witness observation. My direct eye-witness observation was criticised as evidence because I was not a scientist.
I of course thought that was silly, because you don't have to be a scientist to witness and testify against a murder. And those very observations may draw forensic scientists to the area to validate what you saw.
However...in murder, there is a permanant 'budget' and state interest in supporting such expertise. In the case of cyanide poisoning of our beloved reefs, there was no 'state interest' in Marcos' Philippines.
So...20 years later, an academic gets a bit of subsidy for research and conducts a formal study. Lo and behold! Cyanide kills coral!
It ALWAYS killed coral. The fact that some money got put into the issue, [ finally] proved it in scientific circles.
The result? Nothing... Proof...scientific proof alone does nothing without being employed for the greater good of mankind by someone trying to do good. The researcher is not a crusader, a politician or a do-gooder. He's now doing more science in other areas. His proof remains and to this day...put on a shelf.

At least, from now on in conferences and forums, apologists for the cyanide trade [ ie assorted 'scientists' actually] cannot stand up and claim that there is no proof. For that I am grateful. I only wish I had the Cervino study in hand back when pet-business scientists used to attack me for my observations and calls for reform.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Anecdotal information from the hobby is the spark of the next scientific research race.

Dream on.

James Cervino proved that cyanide kills coral and published the results in scientific journal.

The scientific method does not "prove" anything. The data it collects simply supports or negates a hypothesis in that instance of experimentation.

 

[Anonymous]

I will offer that it is the anecdotal information from non-scientifically oriented individuals that spark the next scientific research in many areas, I see no reason why this hobby has to be so different. We can look to diet and nutrition, mental illnesses, the use of creatures such as leaches for medical purposes, horticulture, herbal medicine, acupuncture, the list can grow and grow, all excellent examples of this very phenomenon.

 

[clarionreef]

Rats,
Oh my goodness. You mean it could take another 20 years to nail it down?! The reason and the relevance to study the effects on reefs in the first place will be irrelevant if they continue decline at present rates!
We need to act sooner on all fronts as the purist of science often holds that we never have enough certainty.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Rats,
Oh my goodness. You mean it could take another 20 years to nail it down?!

Steve, not at all. I can appreciate your sense of sarcasm though :lol: . By saying that the scientific method does not consider itself to prove something, I was also trying to illuminate and support your point that just because the scientific method didn't support cyanide's killing of corals until a few years ago doesn't mean that it could not have possibly been recognized or understood that cyanide is toxic to them far, far earlier.

 

[dizzy]

I was also trying to illuminate and support your point that just because the scientific method didn't support cyanide's killing of corals until a few years ago doesn't mean that it could not have possibly been recognized or understood that cyanide is toxic to them far, far earlier.

galleon,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Is that what you meant?

 

[Anonymous]

I was also trying to illuminate and support your point that just because the scientific method didn't support cyanide's killing of corals until a few years ago doesn't mean that it could not have possibly been recognized or understood that cyanide is toxic to them far, far earlier.

galleon,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Is that what you meant?

To some extent, yes.

 

[spoonhandler]

As a scientist, I was feeling a bit defensive when I first read through this thread, but I went over it a second time and calmed down a bit.

Scientists are certainly human and capable of being mistaken, incompetant, biased, etc, just like everybody else, so we certainly can't say that anything printed in a peer-reviewed journal or book is beyond question.

That's critical thinking in action.

However, since getting into this hobby, I've read a lot of material from many sources and there is a lot of pseudoscience and misinformation out there, much of it based on anecdotal evidence. No matter how exacting we are about how we keep our tanks and our logbooks, there are far too many variables in each tank and individual hobbyist. A lot of what is said and done is too far removed from scientific methodology to be of real use.

Survey-based research gathering information from thousands of hobbyists might yield interesting information.

Fl_Seagull wrote:

It is always amazing to me how wrong science has been in history. Often science has to catch up to the engineer or tinker.

:lol:

I can think of lots of examples where engineers and 'tinkerers' also got it wrong, sometimes with dramatic consequences. It doesn't matter if you're a scientist, an engineer, a doctor, a backyard inventor or a marine tank hobbyist - when you need to solve a problem, you need to use scientific reasoning.

 

[Anonymous]

I dont' think this topic's lean is to encourage nixing of the methodology of good science at all. I think it may end up getting many hobbyists to consider that, should they incorporate some of the methodology (to the best of their abilities, which, I know, is.. well.. <shrug>), they very well may be able to contribute something of worth.

However, I stand by my original assertion that, if nothing else, this "home science", more so than any others I, personally, have endeavored, does more to inspire future generations than anything else. And really, isn't that a huge part of the point of all this science in the first place? What other reason have we to amass the knowledge?

 

[Anonymous]

However, I stand by my original assertion that, if nothing else, this "home science", more so than any others I, personally, have endeavored, does more to inspire future generations than anything else.

Inspire future generations to do what? Perpetuate the anecdote and to own and grow corals and other pressured marine species for their personal entertainment? I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

Jesus! To LEARN! To care about this place, to care about other things besides that which only enters their daily lives. To gain an understanding, and desire a better understanding, of how a single small action can bring about an entirely unforeseen effect. I can only assume that you've not interacted with a chid who, at age 8, had never seen the simple beauty of a fresh pear, nor the absolute wonder on this child's face when he beholds a simple cleaner shrimp, and finally grasps all that it means. Do you really need something like that explained to you, a student?

If not for future knowledge and insight into the workings of the ecosystems of our planet, then what good, really and truly, is it?? To simply satisfy our own thirst for knowledge?

I fail to understand why, since you have such an obvious distaste for "the" hobby and hobbyists, you participate on these types of boards in the first place.

 

[Anonymous]

I can only assume...

Yes, we already know you're very good at that.

...that you've not interacted with a chid who, at age 8, had never seen the simple beauty of a fresh pear, nor the absolute wonder on this child's face when he beholds a simple cleaner shrimp, and finally grasps all that it means.

You're kidding yourself about the state of children in this culture. I have taught elementary and middle school education programs for several years now, and in this case, your assumption about me never having seen "this child's face when he ... finally grasps all that it means" would be correct, because it simply doesn't happen; the standard response, thanks to their cultural indoctrination, is "I want one".

Your delusions of idealism, also likely a product of cultural indoctrination, prevent you from seeing the large amount of unlearning it requires to actually make a pupil understand the significance of that cleaner shrimp and where it actually belongs and how it is important.

If not for future knowledge and insight into the workings of the ecosystems of our planet,

As I said above, courtesy of culture, this is far from what happens.

Jesus! To LEARN!

Just for future reference, when someone asks for clarification, your response would come off much more digestable and less laughable if you didn't fly off into frustration.

 

[Anonymous]

If you want to use 'home science' to get kids to learn, I am all for it. However, I think the most important lessons that need to come with 'home science' are 'falsifyability', critical thinking, and the dangers of anecdotal evidence - and the complete 'bologna detection kit' from Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World'. The most important concept for me would be the idea that 'I might be wrong.'
Armchair science is fraught with horrible conclusions - there are still people claiming that Ginger cures 'ich' because there is no 'scientific proof that it doesn't', and Marc Weiss products, eco aqualizers, kick ich and other products still fly off the shelves based on anecdotal evidence. We have to be very careful.

Do I think hobbyists should be more scientific? A little, as long as we realize that we aren't doing actual science, that anecdotal evidence has its limitations, and that our conclusions are suspect.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm with Len also. Hobbyists at home are probably better utilized like little eyes and ears. Let the scientists be the brains. Only problem with that is that the eyes and ears must know a little something about the scientific method, and report all relevant data.

"My fish died, I think my tank is polluted"
"Do you use a protein skimmer or other filter?"
"No, should I?"
"Yeah, you probably had some waste buildup"
"Oh. What about the six pack of coke?"
"Huh?"
"I forgot to tell you, I accidentally dumped that in the tank. Could that hurt my fish?"

 

[Anonymous]

Galleon, I will not enter into a "Sump-stylee" exchange with you topside. You appeared to 'ask' for clarification, and then proceeded to fill in what should have been the blank with your own assumptions. I'm sorry you are so jaded with the world so young, but such is life. I went on to make my my own point emphatically clear, because I am emphatic about it! If I've provided a good chuckle, then I have indeed accomplished something.

Righty, what I'm talking about is what I've actually practiced with my kids and neighbors' kids. I don't think that we can expect better methods from all hobbyists, I don't think that was the gist of the discussion. I do think that there are plenty of hobbyists who use a great deal of science, and have learned a great deal about the life processes of their wards, and many can even offer useful information. Useful to us beyond the scope of trying to keep boxes of water with critters in them. In that context, then I feel that hobbyists can indeed incorporate more/better methods for collecting information that can indeed contribute to the wider knowledge base. However, as with any other field of scientific study, there always have been, and always will be those who practice psuedo-science. It simply can't be eliminated. Does the existance of these types negate all others? I don't think so.

Again, I ask, what else is scientific study of the oceans and its inhabitants for if not ultimately to pass on to future generations??

 

[Anonymous]

Galleon, I will not enter into a "Sump-stylee" exchange with you topside.

Sorry if I'm not willing to jump in and out of a character like you.

Besides, you had already initiated one. Why the grandstanding to stop now? Does it make you feel superior that you can restrain yourself from illuminating us on how you really feel about an issue?

You appeared to 'ask' for clarification, and then proceeded to fill in what should have been the blank with your own assumptions.

There are question marks at the end of those sentences, since you weren't paying attention.

I'm sorry you are so jaded with the world so young...

Don't be. Changed minds are our only hope. The younger the better.

In that context, then I feel that hobbyists can indeed incorporate more/better methods for collecting information that can indeed contribute to the wider knowledge base.

That body of knowledge you refer to is actually technically only contributed to by the results of scientific method. That isn't going to change, and it isn't going to happen in the hobby.

However, as with any other field of scientific study, there always have been, and always will be those who practice psuedo-science.

None of them will be published in a peer reviewed format or be allowed to contribute to the aforementioned body of knowledge. Your understanding of scientific study seems full of rather large holes.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the potential is there, but it's dependant on many variables.

I think what hobbyists can contribute best to the scientific community isn't their assessment of why something occurs, but rather a detailed report of what occurs. Hobbyist often times will make correlative conclusions that have no supportable merit simply because it seems logical to them or others have told them it is so. These type of reports obviously have no real value to the scientific community. So unprocessed information is best.

Some hobbyists are more casual in their observations and procedures. Other hobbyists may be very methodical. The quality of unprocessed reporting (raw data if you will) will largely depend on the integrity and accuracy of the reporting hobbyist.

Granted, anecdotal observations aren't historically reliable, so another way hobbyist can really contribute is by giving science ideas for research rather then actual data or conclusion. Anecdotal data can be effectively used to develop hypothesis and models to be tested by qualified scientists.

i think that sums it up perfectly

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Len.


Does anyone think we shold be more methodical in our observations?

it would depend on why we're making those observations, and whether a more methodical method would serve that purpose :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Weekly Discussion - Science

Do you think it is possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping

At present, no.

or are hobbyists experiences anecdotal? How? Why?

Yes, they are anecdotal. How? Why? Because there is no semblance of scientific method in hobbyist's tanks.

there are many species of aquarium fish whose breeding habits, and successful breeding requirements/conditions, were first discovered by hobbyists ('non-scientists) jack wattley and his observations/investigations into discus slime production comes to mind.


i find it very hard to believe that such is not the case in the sw hobby, as well.


while maybe not done according to scientific method (and therefore not having 'validity', scientifically), the observation made by someone isn't necessarily less true


it may also provide the impetus for properly conducted scientific examination

the value of a discovery, or knowledge in general, isn't made less or more valuable by it's lack of a 'scientific seal of approval'


was the intial observation of the way a prism breaks up the visible light spectrum a 'scientific' one?

 

[Anonymous]

Weekly Discussion - Science

Do you think it is possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping

At present, no.

or are hobbyists experiences anecdotal? How? Why?

Yes, they are anecdotal. How? Why? Because there is no semblance of scientific method in hobbyist's tanks.

there are many species of aquarium fish whose breeding habits, and successful breeding requirements/conditions, were first discovered by hobbyists ('non-scientists) jack wattley and his observations/investigations into discus slime production comes to mind.


i find it very hard to believe that such is not the case in the sw hobby, as well.


while maybe not done according to scientific method (and therefore not having 'validity', scientifically), the observation made by someone isn't necessarily less true


it may also provide the impetus for properly conducted scientific examination

the value of a discovery, or knowledge in general, isn't made less or more valuable by it's lack of a 'scientific seal of approval'


was the intial observation of the way a prism breaks up the visible light spectrum a 'scientific' one?

I agree!!!

In my opinion the hobbyist will play a bigger part than science in the advancement of this hobby. Simply because science has nothing to gain from it.