Weekly Discussion - Science

[dizzy]

Twenty years of hands on experience means nothing when it comes to contributing to the knowledge of marine reefkeeping husbandry. As the boys from Wayne's World would say: "We're not worthy."
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

But we still aren't contributing to science, and that was the original question. The best we are doing is pointing science in a direction we think may be useful.

Knoweldge of marine husbandry sure, but science no. Remember this is the hobby that has brought us eco aqualizer, ginger ich treatments, marc weiss products, never touch sandbeds, laser lights that help the health of fish, and the list of BS goes on and on.
I find it interesting that when a kooky idea comes out science seems needed and wanted to deal with them, but it seems 'common sense' (things we think are true) ideas should be taken at face value.
Science is not a buffet, we can't pick and choose when to use it and when not to. For it to work, we have to be consistant.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Prolly not, but are you willing to accept non scientific observations as reality? Would you put your family on a plane to fly across the sea because a guy told you it would work?

 

[John_Brandt]

Remember this is the hobby that has brought us eco aqualizer...

The Eco-Aqualizer was designed and is supported by a scientist. Sam Gamble is its daddy. He is also the co-author scientist consultant that is 'partnered' with Bob Geomans in his plenum system world.

http://www.saltcorner.com/sections/guest/gamble/samintro.htm

 

[Anonymous]

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

Prolly not, but are you willing to accept non scientific observations as reality? Would you put your family on a plane to fly across the sea because a guy told you it would work?

reality is not the same as a scientifically valid observation based on data, imo

if i saw it work first, yes i would go on the plane

'working' isn't dependant on scientific proof, either, imo

 

[Anonymous]

Remember this is the hobby that has brought us eco aqualizer...

The Eco-Aqualizer was designed and is supported by a scientist. Sam Gamble is its daddy. He is also the co-author scientist consultant that is 'partnered' with Bob Geomans in his plenum system world.

Thanks John. Another reason why the hobby has to not take 'science' on faith.

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

I have seen psychic surgery work. Would you use it?

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

I have seen psychic surgery work. Would you use it?

you've seen it work? 8O then you are more than welcome to use it

when i've seen it work (i've seen it, but i've never seen it work) i'll use it too

 

[Anonymous]

Huh?

That's a bit contradictory, and speaks specifically to one of the points I'd made earlier - that all areas of scientific study are subject to bad science. They also seem to be prone to those with elitist attitudes concerning theories, too.

 

[Money Pit]

Is Righty talking about psychic surgery again....LOL

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

I have seen psychic surgery work. Would you use it?

you've seen it work? 8O then you are more than welcome to use it

when i've seen it work (i've seen it, but i've never seen it work) i'll use it too

How is that different from things others see work in this hobby? Why wouldn't you use ginger to cure ich? Have you seen everything in your systems work before you started using?


And, yes, psychic surgery rocks!
I think you have seen it work Vitz. Everytime it is on tv, it is shown to be working. Same for magentic healing bands. I think you have a higher standard than simply seeing it work.

 

[Money Pit]

I personally will not drive across a bridge without getting out and given it a good kick to make sure it safely constructed, and don't get me started on air bags. I drive into a telephone poll every few days just to make sure my air bags will deploy properly, sure it costs a lot but I can't leave the safety of my family to the government and their silly regulations.

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

I have seen psychic surgery work. Would you use it?

you've seen it work? 8O then you are more than welcome to use it

when i've seen it work (i've seen it, but i've never seen it work) i'll use it too

How is that different from things others see work in this hobby? Why wouldn't you use ginger to cure ich? Have you seen everything in your systems work before you started using?

using, or trying to see if it works myself?
:wink:


And, yes, psychic surgery rocks!
I think you have seen it work Vitz. Everytime it is on tv, it is shown to be working. Same for magentic healing bands. I think you have a higher standard than simply seeing it work.

every psychic surgery i've seen on tv was debunked on the same show about the surgery :wink:

why do you seem to think that accepting something as working w/out 'scientific proof' is the same as blind acceptance bandwagon jumping? :wink:


would you say that water changes are invalid unless their benefits are proven scientifically? :wink:

i KNOW that wc's are good simply by direct observation- i need no scientifically conducted experiment to prove that they work

nor do i need one to know that psychic surgery is bunk :wink:

 

[John_Brandt]

And, yes, psychic surgery rocks!
I think you have seen it work Vitz. Everytime it is on tv, it is shown to be working.

Are you talking about where the "psychic surgeon" hides bloody chicken guts in his hand, then pretends that they are the 'disease' he has 'removed' from the patient?

 

[Anonymous]

i think the topic question is a bit vague if we are going to discuss this to the lengths it currently has been.


science is being discussed as an institution here, which is fine but doesn't the word "Science" encompasses more than this?
also "contribute" is vague as well. if the hobby directs the bonafide 'scientists' in a particular direction wouldn't this be a contribution?

 

[Anonymous]

I personally will not drive across a bridge without getting out and given it a good kick to make sure it safely constructed, and don't get me started on air bags. I drive into a telephone poll every few days just to make sure my air bags will deploy properly, sure it costs a lot but I can't leave the safety of my family to the government and their silly regulations.

But that's the point, you trust someone else to have done the research in a meaningful way.
If some guy said he made this new gadget that was better than seatbelts, would you install it in your car before it was tested 'scientifically' to some sort of standard you believe in?

 

[Anonymous]

And, yes, psychic surgery rocks!
I think you have seen it work Vitz. Everytime it is on tv, it is shown to be working.

Are you talking about where the "psychic surgeon" hides bloody chicken guts in his hand, then pretends that they are the 'disease' he has 'removed' from the patient?

Yes. Millions of people swear by it.

 

[Anonymous]

science is being discussed as an institution here, which is fine but doesn't the word "Science" encompasses more than this?
also "contribute" is vague as well. if the hobby directs the bonafide 'scientists' in a particular direction wouldn't this be a contribution?

Maybe!

 

[Anonymous]

hmm

a theory isn't always proposed scientifically, is it ?

yet it can lead to a hypothesis which can then be proven to be either true or false, by scientific method

the idea that a theory proposed by a non scientist (read hobbyist) has no value to science, or is flawed via the theory's 'non-scientific' origin is patently ludicrous

(kinda like saying if a non scientist proposed the theory of gravity after gettin hit on the head w/an apple, the hypothesis/experimental proof is invalid)

so is the contention that the only valid observations/conclusions about animal husbandry are the ones scientifically proven

if an observation/technique is proven scientifically accurate, does that mean that the contention which wasn't accepted when first proposed is now valid in the past context in which it was offered?

(i.e. like saying that 'the device WAS working yesterday, even though we said it was scientifically meaningless at the time-now that we now it's been proven to work, yesterdays functioning of the device is now valid)

 

[Anonymous]

Its not that the hypothesis/experimental proof is invlaid, its that it is suspect.
It made perfect common sense that objects that weighed more fell to earth faster than smaller objects.