Weekly Discussion - Science

[Anonymous]

:lol:

 

[Brandon1]

Well! The three of you have done a great job of stopping the inane arguments that were previously occurring just above.

<hope you don't mind a bit of fun on my part>

Brandon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and not at all considering the fact that science in the field is often observation and measurements, not actual manipulation of parameters that hobbyists must perform in order to keep the boxes of water. But, maybe you missed some of those previous posts.

I have responded to specific claims made in this thread. To respond to you, the manipulation of parameters is done in science very often, and is in our context is the artificial replication of the natural environment. Many universities have graduate students and professors who maintain reef tanks for the purpose of experiments and observation. This practice is helpful in solving many problems, but unless it very accurately mimics reef in the natural environment, in the grand scheme of things it has a limited application. Even so, maintaining a reef is fun and can be scientifically useful. Hobbyists are what they are, and it is possible to take reef keeping to the level of a science, additionally many scientist keep reefs as part of their research. To what ever extent that reef keeping is helpful in ascertaining scientific knowledge, that goal is generally better served when a trained scientist is doing the reef keeping. The manipulation of levels, observing, recording and forming of hypotheses will be more productive when performed within the structure of scientific method, by an individual who is trained in a wide breadth of sciences that they can apply to any given specific question. I am not a scientist. I am not defending them, I am presenting a point of view that is based in reality. Depending what one intends by the title "scientist," it can be stated that to maintain a reef and keep most of the inhabitants alive for a period of time does not qualify one as a scientist. Possibly a hobbyist. Possibly both, but that titled is not guaranteed to be legitimately granted to one because they spent a few thousand dollars and tinker with salt water in their living room, making untrained observations and feeling important because of it. Are we interested in being honest with ourselves? The functions of hobbyists and scientists DO occasionally overlap. But to exaggerate this and slap each other on the back for being all part of a club in which we get to pretend that we are all scientists, and maybe even superior to them is an unfortunate and misguided tangent driven by narcissism. It is also true that the desires to feel important, useful and respected are natural in any field, especially one such as this, in which people spend insane amounts of money and invest time, energy, and even a piece of their identity into the activity. So I understand the attitudes that most messages on this thread convey. Considering these investments that I have mentioned, maybe it is worthwhile to convince ourselves that the reward is more significant that it really is.

 

[Anonymous]

Brandon wrote:

To what ever extent that reef keeping is helpful in ascertaining scientific knowledge, that goal is generally better served when a trained scientist is doing the reef keeping.

not only do i find that statement highly elitist and snobbish, it's been disproven so many times as to make that assertion, imo, laughable.

all one needs to do is take a look at all of the advances of practical captive reef husbandry made by non-scientists, later 'accepted' by the scientific community.(as if the acceptance makes it then so)

having a title slapped onto your name does not make one's observations more valid, and the very proposition that an observation requires such to be acceptable is ludicrous

neither does one need to be a scientist, to make observations via proper scientific methodology.one just has to be familiar w/the protocols :wink:

there isn't one group of people on this planet that has a monopoly on valid knowledge/research technique, and methinks it would behoove the scientific community to realize this, for their own benefit, if for no one elses

fwiw- i've worked in 2 propagation 'labs' -in one as both co manager and data collector, and have had no formal 'scientific' training,and yet, my data was absolutely correct and acceptable to the research scientists that were involved w/the facility

my successes in larval rearing were even better than their's were :roll:

 

[Brandon1]

To respond ^.... you are misunderstanding, and must consider that statement in the content that it was written. I agree with most of what you have said. I used the word generally, which means that there are exceptions, but if want to live in reality, the more experience you have with science, the more advanced your observations are likely to be. I not elitists, and like I said, I am not a scientist. A hobbyists may be reasonably familiar with science, and many marine biologists for example, maintain reef tanks in labs and on campuses were numbers of graduate students and professors monitor them, perform experiments and so on, and also have machines and resources available that most hobbyists do not. But it has nothing to do with slapping on a labile, as I tried to indicate, one's definition of what is a scientist may vary. But the more experience and training the better, thats obvious. Decades of schooling and research develop your knowledge, ability and credibility. Many people do not have the desire, dedication or commitment to study like a maniac and take it to that level, but some do, and GENERALLY speaking a masters will give you some authority on the subjects you study. I am not not diminishing the capabilities of hobbyists, because the term is vague, some make great observation, some make observations that they can apply to a framework of scientific knowledge, some apply the scientific method in their work, some do not, ect.

I am answering the question posed by this form in this way: it is OF COURSE possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping!

There are a huge number of reef keepers, and they have developed a significant amount of the knowledge and practices that make up the hobby today without degrees in science. I have been responding to the "we make better observations than scientists" attitude that has been voiced in this thread and makes us all look stupid. We have developed the hobyy through trail and error, good and bad observations, because we have had a strong desire to do so. Trained scientists have not put the same number of man hours into these specific subjects as hobbyists, it is a very specific topic that we are discussing. But we when we take reef keeping the level of a science we would be better served to apply the scientific method, and we not superior to scientists. Scientists are studying the entire universe. We are specialists and all have different levels of education, problem solving abilities and approaches to this hobby. Can we contribute? Yes. Do we as a group possess an ABILITY to contribute to it than scientists? No. Have we put more energy into it over the years? Yes.

 

[Brandon1]

typing fast and have some typos there^ but you get the points. Main thing to correct is : Do we as a group possess a BETTER ABILITY to contribute to it than scientists do? No.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the initial question was lost here. It wasn't who has more to contribute, it was phrased much more simply than that, the original question was "Do you think it is possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping, or are hobbyists experiences anecdotal? How? Why?"

This has been answered, and vollied back and forth, several times. However, it's never really been a question of who can contribute more, I have a feeling hobbyists outnumber scientists, as all it really takes is a fistful of dollars. What an individual chooses to do beyond that is entirely up to that individual. I still stand by my assertion that the hobby, as a whole, can and has contributed to the sciences involved in the practice and husbandry of reefkeeping.

 

[Brandon1]

I think the initial question was lost here. It wasn't who has more to contribute, it was phrased much more simply than that, the original question was "Do you think it is possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping, or are hobbyists experiences anecdotal? How? Why?"

This has been answered, and vollied back and forth, several times. However, it's never really been a question of who can contribute more, I have a feeling hobbyists outnumber scientists, as all it really takes is a fistful of dollars. What an individual chooses to do beyond that is entirely up to that individual. I still stand by my assertion that the hobby, as a whole, can and has contributed to the sciences involved in the practice and husbandry of reefkeeping.

Who would disagree with that? I have said the same. But in a discussion, other things come up. I was responding to a general attitude regarding scientist, and I think I brought some balance to the conversation and disagreed with some narcissistic statements and implications. The answer to the question is pretty obvious. And if you had read my last comment, the point of the topic was not lost, I brought right back to the original question and answered it.

As for your comments to me:

"<hope you don't mind a bit of fun on my part>
Brandon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and not at all considering the fact that science in the field is often observation and measurements, not actual manipulation of parameters that hobbyists must perform in order to keep the boxes of water."

They did not criticize what I had said, because I was not talking about only science in the field. I assert that your comment to me was "inane." When I responded to these comments your next post ignored my response, and you all of a sudden wanted to get back to "initial question." I'll take that as you "having a bit of fun".... once your argument is discredited is isn't as fun I guess. Was it "fun" while it lasted?

 

[Anonymous]

To respond ^.... you are misunderstanding, and must consider that statement in the content that it was written. I agree with most of what you have said. I used the word generally, which means that there are exceptions, but if want to live in reality, the more experience you have with science, the more advanced your observations are likely to be. I not elitists, and like I said, I am not a scientist. A hobbyists may be reasonably familiar with science, and many marine biologists for example, maintain reef tanks in labs and on campuses were numbers of graduate students and professors monitor them, perform experiments and so on, and also have machines and resources available that most hobbyists do not. But it has nothing to do with slapping on a labile, as I tried to indicate, one's definition of what is a scientist may vary. But the more experience and training the better, thats obvious. Decades of schooling and research develop your knowledge, ability and credibility. Many people do not have the desire, dedication or commitment to study like a maniac and take it to that level, but some do, and GENERALLY speaking a masters will give you some authority on the subjects you study. I am not not diminishing the capabilities of hobbyists, because the term is vague, some make great observation, some make observations that they can apply to a framework of scientific knowledge, some apply the scientific method in their work, some do not, ect.

I am answering the question posed by this form in this way: it is OF COURSE possible for hobbyists to contribute to the scientific community regarding husbandry and methodology of reef keeping!

There are a huge number of reef keepers, and they have developed a significant amount of the knowledge and practices that make up the hobby today without degrees in science. I have been responding to the "we make better observations than scientists" attitude that has been voiced in this thread and makes us all look stupid. We have developed the hobyy through trail and error, good and bad observations, because we have had a strong desire to do so. Trained scientists have not put the same number of man hours into these specific subjects as hobbyists, it is a very specific topic that we are discussing. But we when we take reef keeping the level of a science we would be better served to apply the scientific method, and we not superior to scientists. Scientists are studying the entire universe. We are specialists and all have different levels of education, problem solving abilities and approaches to this hobby. Can we contribute? Yes. Do we as a group possess an ABILITY to contribute to it than scientists? No. Have we put more energy into it over the years? Yes.

thanks for your clarification

i mostly agree w/what you've said here

 

[Anonymous]

Lets burn him (Brandon) at the stake...My home is a Lab....hello i work in a field of science...so i classify myself a scientist...you find me a place on where you can get a B.S. in being a "Scientist"...

 

[Anonymous]

Brandon, my post wasn't directed towards you until I specifically named you. Please reread, and readjust. Your points actually argued both sides of the fence, so, up to that point I wasn't sure what your point was really was, other than to say that you felt hobbyists (or the hobby) could not contribute to science.

 

[Brandon1]

Brandon, my post wasn't directed towards you until I specifically named you. Please reread, and readjust. Your points actually argued both sides of the fence, so, up to that point I wasn't sure what your point was really was, other than to say that you felt hobbyists (or the hobby) could not contribute to science.

Reread your earlier post and readjust, it obviously comments on a conversation I was involved in with one other person, don't b.s... if then reread my post literally, I never said that hobbyists could not or had not contributed to science, I said they generally could not do it BETTER than scientists, which is not stating that hobbyists haven't contributed more, its stating that they are not better qualified to do so. I was specifically addressing the scientist bashing nonsense that came up by adding in my opinion, which I feel is based in reality, which is something we should strive for. I never argued both sides of the fence, maybe you didn't read closely enough, sort it out.

 

[Anonymous]

Alright, an excercise in semantics and perception. Brandon, I started with this...

We look and guess, maybe applying things we read in books (unless the reef keeper is a scientist himself). Scientists have PHDs and more. We are now guessing as to weather or not we can contribute. Maybe we can, by documenting many events, but they may depend on environmental factors that we are not recording or reporting, and everything we observe is limited by the fact that it happens under artificial conditions. Don't get too narcissistic. Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not.

WHETHER or not we contribute is not a guessing game. This is one side of the fence. Maybe we can, but it depends, is this another side of the fence? I dunno, but it seems that the whole thread wasn't read, especially with the comment regarding artificial conditions. Then the declaration to "Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not" (should be whether, as we're not talking about the weather ). Also, don't scientists also learn things they <gasp> read in books?? Unless they have an innate ability to learn through osmosis...

Then I see this...

HAHAHA.... I really don;t want to sound rude, but I just can't understand what the hell you guys are talking about. Sure amateurs may contribute occasionally, you've got many more people with home reef for example, than highly educated scientists who specialize in studying reefs, and they observe constantly. So just the numbers tell you that some piece of information likely to be contributed to science occasionally. But the amateurs constantly saving the scientists butts? And having a less limited view of subject, and on and on.... that's a joke and you guess are being ridiculous, snap out of it.

Ok, you laugh, I jest. Yours is funny, mine isn't. <shrug> You say some contribute occasionally (that's one side of the fence, again), after saying that it's the highly educated scientists (implying, of course, that if one is a hobbyist one isn't highly educated. My, my, that actually is rather rude) who must decide what's of value. :|

I had a hard time understanding those posts, Brandon, as you seemed to be jumping back and forth, but jumping mostly on the side of "the hobby cannot contribute", which I dispute. As for inane, come on, those are intelligent, meaningful posts? You started off the second one saying that you didn't understand what was being discussed/debated. I'm sorry, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the hobby actually saves scientist's buttocks, nor am I going to say that all hobbyists are educated - I've been helping folks out in too many capacities to make any statement like that - but I've been saying, and will say yet again, that the hobby as a whole can contribute, and has done so. And I do not believe that, in saying this, that I or anyone else is being narcissistic at all. I think it's a demonstration of open-mindedness, all-the-while keeping in mind that for any of it to be of good value to science, a stringent, regular methodology must be used. Part of the issue that I'd brought up before is the fact that what's learned within the scientific community isn't shared with a broad audience, so any chance to share for a "greater" good is lost. This is quite different within the hobby, especially with the advent of internet, because folks seem to love to share their information and don't have such a tendency to make it available only to an exclusive group. Don't believe me, just take a look at Advanced Aquarist.

Btw, I'm not a hobbyist, and haven't been one in quite some years.

 

[Anonymous]

definition of scientist: an expert in the field of sciences....(btw, nothing stating you have to have phd or any degree for that matter)...I guess someone who is a hobbyist can also be an expert....this definition is curtious of Websters Dictionary....So i guess the answer to the whole Topic, is yes, hobbyists can contribute to science....

 

[Brandon1]

Alright, an excercise in semantics and perception. Brandon, I started with this...

We look and guess, maybe applying things we read in books (unless the reef keeper is a scientist himself). Scientists have PHDs and more. We are now guessing as to weather or not we can contribute. Maybe we can, by documenting many events, but they may depend on environmental factors that we are not recording or reporting, and everything we observe is limited by the fact that it happens under artificial conditions. Don't get too narcissistic. Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not.

WHETHER or not we contribute is not a guessing game. This is one side of the fence. Maybe we can, but it depends, is this another side of the fence? I dunno, but it seems that the whole thread wasn't read, especially with the comment regarding artificial conditions. Then the declaration to "Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not" (should be whether, as we're not talking about the weather ). Also, don't scientists also learn things they <gasp> read in books?? Unless they have an innate ability to learn through osmosis...

Then I see this...

HAHAHA.... I really don;t want to sound rude, but I just can't understand what the hell you guys are talking about. Sure amateurs may contribute occasionally, you've got many more people with home reef for example, than highly educated scientists who specialize in studying reefs, and they observe constantly. So just the numbers tell you that some piece of information likely to be contributed to science occasionally. But the amateurs constantly saving the scientists butts? And having a less limited view of subject, and on and on.... that's a joke and you guess are being ridiculous, snap out of it.

Ok, you laugh, I jest. Yours is funny, mine isn't. <shrug> You say some contribute occasionally (that's one side of the fence, again), after saying that it's the highly educated scientists (implying, of course, that if one is a hobbyist one isn't highly educated. My, my, that actually is rather rude) who must decide what's of value. :|

I had a hard time understanding those posts, Brandon, as you seemed to be jumping back and forth, but jumping mostly on the side of "the hobby cannot contribute", which I dispute. As for inane, come on, those are intelligent, meaningful posts? You started off the second one saying that you didn't understand what was being discussed/debated. I'm sorry, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the hobby actually saves scientist's buttocks, nor am I going to say that all hobbyists are educated - I've been helping folks out in too many capacities to make any statement like that - but I've been saying, and will say yet again, that the hobby as a whole can contribute, and has done so. And I do not believe that, in saying this, that I or anyone else is being narcissistic at all. I think it's a demonstration of open-mindedness, all-the-while keeping in mind that for any of it to be of good value to science, a stringent, regular methodology must be used. Part of the issue that I'd brought up before is the fact that what's learned within the scientific community isn't shared with a broad audience, so any chance to share for a "greater" good is lost. This is quite different within the hobby, especially with the advent of internet, because folks seem to love to share their information and don't have such a tendency to make it available only to an exclusive group. Don't believe me, just take a look at Advanced Aquarist.

Btw, I'm not a hobbyist, and haven't been one in quite some years.

I was very clear on my position in my last post. One side of the fence, but communicated with my own ideas, a discussion, not a single statement or point. You have contradicted your self by denying that had called my argument inane, and then admitting it when I called you on it. Double talking. You don't like the tone of my argument because I went against the grain, refusing to talk sh*t about scientists to enhance the self importance of our little internet club, acting pretentious while patting ourselves on our backs... claiming amateurs always save the scientist's butts (someone did, which was consistent with the implications of many other posts) is a selective acknowledgment of facts, a warped view of reality, (and yes that is narcissistic, and there are many more examples in this thread) and smells like a self important, pseudo intellectual comic book store clerk who hates the fact that some people worked harder and are better informed and more capable than him... like scientists. I'm not saying everyone who agreed with him fits this description necessarily, I'm saying these claims sound pathetic when they are so proudly made.
I hope you are advanced enough in your communication skills that you understand mild sarcasm. I would guess that you do, and are just grasping for straws when you pretend you don't understand why I wrote, " Let the scientists decide weather we are contributing or not," because its so contradictory. I am responding the negative tone against scientists, which inspired me to write these posts in the first place... being sarcastic, genus.

You siad, " Also, don't scientists also learn things they <gasp> read in books?? Unless they have an innate ability to learn through osmosis... "

HaHa... whats with the gasp? Who said they don;t learn reading book, thats stupid.

You also said, " Part of the issue that I'd brought up before is the fact that what's learned within the scientific community isn't shared with a broad audience, so any chance to share for a "greater" good is lost. "



Not true. There are countless scientific journals that can be ordered, read on the internet or in a library. Scientists publish there findings, you just have go get them and read. And there is plenty of information about natural reef which we can apply to our tanks. Also, like I said, MANY scientists and universities maintain and study their own reef tanks. These are facts that are part of the discussion. It is not "both sides of the fence" to be sarcastic (loosen up) or to have a discussion, I am not implying with these facts that hobbyists haven't contributed or not, everyone knows they have. LAST TIME: I disagreed with elements of the discussion, and tried to bring it back to reality with common sense and honesty, also using sarcasm to a small extent for effect! No one else had a problem with it, I think they got it, but there's your explanation and analysis of my posts... still not clear enough? Don't worry about it. Just get this: The main reason hobbyists have contributed to reef keeping is through dedication, hard work, intense interests, and most of all the fact that there many more hobbyists than scientists specializing in reef keeping, and people have messed with there tanks for more hours over the years than trained scientists have spent studying reef keeping. Pencils weren't necessarily invented by an english major. But when it is said that hobbyists have contributed more to reef keeping, it is narcissistic to twist it into "therefor we are better qualified to advance reef keeping than those stuffy boring scientists." And scientists are not the enemy. I don;t really care if agree because I don't know you and am sick of this. But those are my positions, and I think I brought up things that had not been mentioned, and in doing so contributed to the debate.

 

[Anonymous]

hey dood, no one ever talked down on scientists...thats the most B.S. statement i ever heard...The question is at hand, can hobbyist contribute to science! The answer is yes, this is not opinion, its fact....Lets say, for one moment you have a minor degree in Marine Biology, however your "job" is an accountant at a company that makes cell phones..Your "hobby" is having, hmmm, lets say reef tanks...YOU mean to TELL me that Joe Schmucketelli isnt a contributor to science...Thats the biggest load of crap ive ever heard....

 

[Brandon1]

Lordnikon, you wrote, "hey dood, no one ever talked down on scientists...thats the most B.S. statement i ever heard..."

hey dood, did you read the thread? here's a few examples...

Looks like the amateur/hobbyist saved the scientist butts once again...

It isn’t too surprising that that scientist often poop-poop non-scientists. But considering that it takes science 100-150 years to correct its errors, scientists have reasons to be afraid to admit that they may not be the sole source of knowledge. Like any guild, they must protect the belief that they have superior knowledge/learning/skill to justify they livelihood.

Even scientists don’t know why everything works they just can tell you what research has been done



I wanted to share with you the image that the term 'scientist' conjures up in the minds of fisherman in a small village in Baja, Mexico.
1] A guy who always throws up in the boat
2] A guy that has to ask the poor illiterate fisherman what 1/3 of the fish are...since they know all the fish to begin with and the scientist never does.
3] A guy who never can complete more than 3 -4 hours of survey work underwater because hes to pooped to continue, especially if any current is running...unlike the fisherman who can dive all day.
4] A guy who alays has his hand out for cash per diems that the fisherman are forced to pay for the service of being monitored by a scientist.
5] A guy who never gets to see the mating dance of the bluespot jawfish because he has not the hunters instinct to approach them stealthily enough.
6] A guy who 'wants' to culture everything in the city based labratoryand ban everthing else leaving the fisherman poorer then ever.

...with more 'marine biologists' then you can shake a stick at.
They burn, they vomit, they over-charge and they don't do well the the villages where they must often embark from to get to the object of their Discovery channel enhanced affection.
The ocean is fine for them as long as they don't get in it. They do their best 'research' at home when nobodys watching.

The cycle of grant writing and cut-throat tactics employed by many scientists eliminates the ability to cater to direct needs in many cases.

generally the scientist needs to isolate factors in order to understand them. In order to isolate factors, it requires a single-mindedness about the ongoing project and that reflects badly on those involved.

.

Then you wrote, "The question is at hand, can hobbyist contribute to science! The answer is yes, this is not opinion, its fact...."

This is obvious and has been established in this thread over and over. They CAN contribute, but are not better qualified to do so.

Then you wrote, "YOU mean to TELL me that Joe Schmucketelli isn't a contributor to science..."

That depends on his actions, not his description, he is an unlikely potential contributor.

 

[Anonymous]

You know, you're throwing in quotes from more than one person, that gets tricky, leads to that backpedaling.

 

[Len]

Let's keep it civil please.

 

[Anonymous]

I say CAN be equally qualified...what do you do for a living anyways...??? Are you one of those "scientist" that refuse to believe anyone outside of a degree can be an equal??? kinda arrogant and egotistical if that is the case...so in my humble opinion you arent a contributor to this topic...

 

[melanotaenia1]

Scientists all have their noses in the air, I used to work for one, they think they know everything and hate to be told otherwise. I think we as hobbyists can contribute more than scientists because we all have info on such an array of home setups and ecosystems, so diverse no scientist could ever duplicate it. And one other thing to point out......we as hobbyists find stuff out to help us and to help others in the hobby.......we find a way to kill a pest and immediately we want to share our good fortune. Scientists, on the other hand, always are looking for the bottom line. I think if marine science involved more hands-on hobbyists, more would be able to be learned about the species we keep and care for everyday.

Unless that scientist has a love for fish, how can you say he or she is really putting in 110%? :?

Oh and one other thing I went to college and got my Masters from the University of Rochester, but that does not mean I would not love advice from someone who knows more than me about something, regardless of their "educational status" or what they have framed on the wall.