Weekly Discussion - Science

[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, or are hobbyists experiences anecdotal? How? Why?

About the RDO Weekly Discussion:
This discussion is meant to get at your experience and to share information that is in your head, so don't necessarily treat it as information gathering. State your opinion and, if available, use material, anecdotal or otherwise, that will back up your opinion.
Past weekly discussions will be archived in the archives.
If you have topics that you think would be helpful for the RDO community to discuss, please send me a pm or start your own thread! :mrgreen:

 

[Len]

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.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Len.


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

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Len.


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

definately.
i am pretty poor on keeping logs and often don't recall dates of bulbs being installed or waterchanges.
what i tend to rely on is just what Len describes, a seemingly logical conclusion. these are pretty inaccurate and i suppose the potential for disaster is high.
i myself have tried a bit of a more methodical approach... i can't seem to stay on target.

BTW, am i under the wrong impression that the hobby has indeed progressed science abroad?

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely a better methodology could be applied and thus be quite useful. I'm brought to recollect when my blue devils began to breed, at the time I'd never heard of the internet (as though there would be the vast supply of information available at that time anyway). I called magazines, wholesalers, other retailers, aquarium organizations and societies to try to find just one lead as to what I could do to consider viable fry.

The problem that we had then can often still be a problem now; there may be plenty of scientific information available, but only to academics (as in "for a price"), and not easily found or available to the average hobbyist.

I feel that when we endeavor to recreate a bit of the ocean in our homes we're restricted in a way that science may not be specifically because we're doing this. Because of this, because of our methods, we are able to learn what's really important to a given specimen's life processes (although it's often entirely mysterious), but not in a scientific manner for the most part. It would be nice to see a marriage, as I've learned long ago that the thing itself, this box of water, makes an incredible teaching tool and inspires our future.

Jeez.. I hope that made some sense.

 

[Anonymous]

I think there are way too many variables in the way for hobbyists to contribute much of any good science. Just because a hobbyist has experience with reef tanks does not mean they know the first thing about proper scientific procedure, methods, and protocols.

In fact, the preponderance of anecdotal information, myths and assertions is due to hobbyist overconfidence or misinterpretation as to what they are observing - and jumping to conclusions. I can't really think of any way a single reef tank constitues proper grounds for scientific analysis, can you? There's just not enough control in place.

It's a hobby and some people are very good at it, but once a proper scientific "experiment" is implemented, it's no longer the hobby as we know it. It's science and the goal(s) are very specific - more specific than "my corals are pretty and grow really well" or "I upped my calcium by 50ppm and the corals are growing like crazy."

It's deceiving to the average person...

 

[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.

 

[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.

Do you see that changing in the future? How?

 

[Anonymous]

Do you see that changing in the future? How?

It could, but it's beyond the scope of most people.

* it's laborious and time-consuming
* to be done well and proper, it needs to be painfully exacting
* it's far more demanding than keeping a tank (and how many folks gripe
about how much time they spend doing that)
* it requires proper education, training, and resources or it becomes a
waste of time real quick

All-in-all, it's unfortunate because hobbyists have the initial interest and fascination needed to put energy and desire into the science, but they don't have the time and won't likely get the money (what money?). Self gratification isn't enough reward for most people IMO - and that's about all they'd get. And of course, most wouldn't have the thick skin and perserverence to belly-up to the scrutiny. It's a learned trait...

Example - how many such "scientists" currently have problems realizing the flaws in their idealogy and can't adapt to outside information? Too many IMO.

 

[kim]

I agree with all of the above (I'm new around here, so.....).

Especially Len's response. There are various levels at which people can contribute to "knowledge", and in undeveloped areas, such as marine biology, simple observation can be valuable. All science starts at observation, then moves on to find "patterns", and then seeks to explain those patterns.

However, one person's observations may not be that useful. Unless that individual has built a CV and established credibility within the scientific community, he will be ignored. He almost certainly won't have the weight required to publish his observations in a peer-reviewed and widely-read journal.

It's no good just doing good work, you have to be heard. Getting to that level is the tough bit.

Right now, the sort of people who have the drive, and who will make the sacrifice, are up to their necks in cold water, up to their knees in silt, and something just started to nibble their toes. 8O



kim

 

[Mogo]

I agree with Galleon. I used to do fw fisheries science where we had the best equipment/labs, techniques and reporting available. In my saltwater hobby world, consistent monitoring of all parameters with reliable testing equipment and methods does not approach a precision needed to do good science. For me, Hobby and Scientific Method are far apart.

 

[John_Brandt]

In fact, the preponderance of anecdotal information, myths and assertions is due to hobbyist overconfidence or misinterpretation as to what they are observing - and jumping to conclusions.

Scientists are not immune to this either. Many believe the same myths that hobbyists do. In some cases, I think the hobbyist community has more rapid and intensive peer-review than the formal scientific world. But that doesn't mean that we always arrive at the truth. Consensus frequently seems to dictate what is "true" in the hobbyist community, but this is no indicator of fact.

But poor critical thinking skills and applications are wherever you find them. The scientific methodology, when properly administered, is the best way we have found to arrive at facts and theories about the real world.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks John.

I realize the scientific commuity is by no means immune to this, but at least they have the education (in most cases) to reduce the amount of completely baseless statements - or at least provide the data so you can show them where they're off. I know that the science community often takes on a religious-like partitioning and you have to weed through alot of self-interest in many cases.
Yeah, there are certainly bad scientists and lots of clan-like mentality...I can't argue there. The worst part may be that lots of money is given out by folks who essentially tell you what your conclusion(s) will be. Just about any environmental issue comes to mind...

I agree with the consensus thing, but if folks knew a bit about what constitutes effect from its cause and how to eliminate variables, they could be very good for science. The problem is folks want a 120 gallon reef tank, not 6 sterile 20 gallons with a frag of Pocillopora in each of them!

 

[dizzy]

Yeah, there are certainly bad scientists and lots of clan-like mentality...I can't argue there. The worst part may be that lots of money is given out by folks who essentially tell you what your conclusion(s) will be. Just about any environmental issue comes to mind...

Graham thanks for sharing this inside information. It certainly confirms what others like Ad van tage, blue hula, and Steve Robinson have been telling us in the Industry Forum.

It also helps to explain why industry input was largely ignored when MAC was developing the standards for certification. Someone with a superiority complex is not going to pay much attention to advice from inferiors. A lot of the events of the past couple of years now make perfect sense to me. Thank you very much for explaining this so clearly.

 

[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.

Do you see that changing in the future? How?

Nope.

 

[Anonymous]

Graham thanks for sharing this inside information. It certainly confirms what others like Ad van tage, blue hula, and Steve Robinson have been telling us in the Industry Forum.

It also helps to explain why industry input was largely ignored when MAC was developing the standards for certification. Someone with a superiority complex is not going to pay much attention to advice from inferiors. A lot of the events of the past couple of years now make perfect sense to me. Thank you very much for explaining this so clearly.

I'm not sure if you are ribbing me or not... :wink:
I don't have any "inside information" as in a confidante with the Feds, but I do enough listening and reading to get a pretty good sense of what is going on. My career is science.

The current Administration for example, isn't looking to convince people that the climate is in danger (if it is). This is evident in every piece of rhetoric they put out (no, they aren't the only ones). Thus, they hire folks to conduct a study that doesn't show any deleterious effects of industrial emissions and the antiquated standards, etc. This is nothing new, though...it's all about agendas at that level and so on down the line. It's the same on the other side of the coin.

The worst scientists IMO are often the ones who strive to make the big bucks and "play the game". At that level, from my understanding, the money is coming from special interest groups and government entities in order for them to make (continue making) money.

Then there are the Universities where the main source of cutting edge research is coming from -and largely unbiased...lots of this stuff is masters or doctorate material and from what I know, rarely pays off unless the discovery is truly groudbreaking. Students still have the edge because they aren't wrapped up in the system. As was said before, hobbyists have a day job. No one gets into science for the money - not many anyway, and many hobbyists are already making a pretty good living doing something totally unrelated...do you agree?

 

[reefann]

I think this hobby will contribute to the scientific community in some ways. Here is what I feel the biggest one is. Kids like me!
Before I got into this hobby two years ago I was a 14 year old who would never even consider college, period! Now I may be thinking about it, who knows I'm still young, hobbies like this, in my opinion, bring kids into science that would have never cared.

 

[clarionreef]

Think of it like this...
"Scientists", a scientist once told me, "are like lawyers. The good they may do is in the direction they're pointed and funded."
They may be instruments for good...they may 'cover' for the destruction of the rainforest in Brazil and work for the logging industry.
They may help save the oceans...and they may work for the biggest oil companies and seafood processors to help ruinthe oceans.
The implications of funding sources with pre-determined objectives are to be weighed before making the assumption that whats scientific means truth, precision and clarity.
The greatest critic of science for sale must've been scientist Carl Sagan. In my life it was the forest ecologist Dr. Dan Jantzen working in Costa Rica. Hes said so many are dillatauntes...generally for rent if not for sale. I think that in his battles to save the rainforests, he found scientific front men as foils for the loggers all too often.
If nothing in their discipline directs them towards the ethical and moral use of science, then I have no use for them...he said.
His experience mirrors my own where the early defenders of the cyanide trade were scientists. Not until I found scientists w/ compassion and heart, did I begin to understand the they are just human...vulnerable to temptation as anyone.
Steve

 

[Fl_Seagull]

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

If anything I have found the scientific community always reaches a point when research is so tightly focused in one area that no progress can be made. That is when the tinkers and engineers tend to be the pathfinders. The path is found in their Anecdotal information.

Anecdotal information is not inherently wrong any more than scientifically proven is inherently true. Having read far too many “journaled” scientific papers, which were later shown to be wrong because of hidden procedural or statically error, I am more than a little concerned when people become convinced that unless the high priests of science bless some idea it is worthless.

I find it refreshing to find that innovation is a live and well in the various hobbies.

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

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you!