1) I wish you would use the quote tags so that when responding to someone's quote, you had their name attached to it. Because some of the things you are responding to are mine and some are andy's. It is very confusing to be sure whose points you are addressing.
2) The seamtincs about the word soothe, again, I think are very important. Despite your insistence that they aren't. I think it is important because you have to be very clear what exactly is meant by "soothe". Because then you have to be able to quantify the amount of "soothing" that an agent has in order to see if the effect of the agent was above statistical noise and placebo effects.
Look, almost the exact same definition you gave is good for "pain relief". And how do we study the pain relief of new medications? We conduct a double-blind study of the new drug and placebo drugs and ask patients how the drug is working to relieve their pain. Most often, the researchers ask the patients to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10 before and during the treatment. That way, the amount of pain relief can be
quantified. I.e., the new drug on average reduces pain 4.3 units whereas the placebo only reduced pain 1.5 units. Or something similar. This is how we know when something is actually working above and beyond the placebo effect.
Now, obviously, fish aren't going to be able to communicate to us on a scale from 1 to 10. But, qualified reearchers can probably tell the signs of stress in a fish. Rapid, darty movements, labored breathing, loss of color etc. And, the amount of these stress indicators can be ranked so as to quantify the amount relief from the stress that they are getting. I.e. given the placebo over the same time 25 of the 50 fish stopped breathing rapidly and gained their color back, but by putting the aloe extract in the water 45 of the 50 in the other tank stopped breathing rapidly and got their color back. This is the kind of experiment that would be convincing to me. Is there anything like this? I've never seen anything like it, if you could cite one, then maybe this argument would be ended.
In this case, the word "sooth" would be defined by the researchers to have a very specific meaning. So that when we look it up in the dictionary, we aren't going to be confused about all the various aspects of the word that could come into meaning. Any good scientific paper that is going to use potentially ambiguous words is going to define exactly what they mean upfront or assume that the way the word is used is common to their specific niche of science. Unless you are researching specifically in that area, use of the words must be done carefully. A good example is that what a physicis means by the word "coincidence" is very, very different than what the average person means. How science uses the word "theory" is very different that what is means by most people, as well.
For example, see the paper "Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress" by K.P. Chandroo, I.J.H. Duncan, R.D. Moccia in
Applied Animal Behaviior Science 2004.
from the paper:
Fear may be defined as a psychophysiological response to perceived danger, and is a phenomenon
which acts as a powerful motivator to evade perceived threats (Jones, 1997). Fear
in fish has been characterised through branchial responses, alarm pheromone-initiated responses
and aversive behavioural reactions. Fearful responses of fish to noxious or startling
stimuli, which are manifested as vigorous, rapid escape manoeuvres are collectively de-
fined as fast-start responses.
Chandroo et al. define exactly what they mean when they use the word fear. So that someone doesn't have to go to websters.com and have to guess which of the 9 definitions is what was meant. All I am asking is for something similar to be defined by exactly what is meant by "soothe" I don't think that this is too much to ask to have clear definitions about what is being discussed so that everyone knows exactly was is being discussed. And, again, when an exact definition is given, then we can begin to quantify it and see how strong or weak any effect actually is, so that we aren't just left to ambiguous words like better or worse or much or little or etc. Quantification again makes things clear.
3) The reason I am skeptical about it is because the known properties of aloe aren't inherently soothing. They are anti-microbial, but only mildly. They are good at keeping tissues moist, which aren't an issue with fish. Aloe can also be every so slightly numbing, but it takes a very large concentration to do that. A squirt of aloe gel in a tank of water will be diluted very quickly and any numbing effects are going to be nullifies by dilution. Just because Stress Coat puts aloe in their product doesn't mean it works. There are many, many other products out there that are sold for our fishtanks that have little or no actual benefit. It is called marketing.
4) It is not a logical fallacy to say that we shouldn't be adding honey and garlic etc. to our tanks because there isn't any evidence at this time. There is not logical errors here, it is just a statement of our current knowledge. I never said that it shouldn't be studied, my statement is merely a representation of our current state of knowledge. It is actually the same with our current state of knowledge about aloe in a fishtank. At this point in time, I am skeptical because I have not seen any objective data about it. It doesn't mean it isn't true. Science is skeptical about everything until evidence can be brought forth in support of the claim. It isn't logical fallacy, it is the conservative nature of science.
The bigger issue about this is the great number of people who are willing to sell you anything as the next "miracle cure". This has been going on be centuries now. The modern equivalents of yesteryear's snake oil are the people peddling homeopathic remedies and magnetic pain relief and "Head On" headache remedies and the like. The placebo effect is very strong when we want something to work, so there is actually a considerable amount of pain relieved by using these devices and products. The problem is that none of them do it statistically better than a placebo. The placebo effect is so strong, that in actuality the more expensive an item is supposed to have cost, the stronger the placebo effect is. (Look at this article about a study conducted last year:
http
/www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/health/r.../05placebo.html ). Back to point: there will never be a shortage of people willing to take your money promising to make things all better. For you, your dog, your cat, or even your fish. And, yes, the placebo effect can work even on non-humans because sometimes animals will just get better on their own with or without the aid of the "supplement" or the "tank additive" that was added. That's why scientific studies about these things are important, to remove the anecdotal part of the "evidence" that people will present. I do not doubt Purity when they posted that when they added aloe to their tank, the fish got better. There is no reason to assume that they lied. What we don't know is whether the fish would have gotten better on their own or not.
Without this knowledge, science assumes a skeptical position and asks for more objective unbiased evidence. That is all I have done to date. Science doesn't say: "Without evidence claim X is false". Science says "there isn't enough information at this time whether claim X is true or false." That is all I am saying. That there isn't any good evidence to believe that aloe soothes fish when added to a tank.
5)
where is the scientifically published evidence to back up your claim that aloe extract does NOT "soothe" fish?
This is a complete misapplication of science. Science does NOT have to disprove the negative of every claim in order to remain skeptical about the claim. Your quote in no way whatsoever "follows" my line of reasoning. My line of reasoning is based on the solid scientific principle that lack of evidence means that the claim is unsupported. Your statement here is saying that until every single possible alternative explanation is proven false, then it must be given equal footing as a valid idea. This is just nonsense.
You know this. One does not have to disprove the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster in order to be justifiably skeptical of their existence. Once does not have to have a camera on every square foot of land or every cubic foot of water in order to be justified in not believing either one exists. The lack of objective clear evidence that either one exists is enough. Does this mean that they don't exist? Of course not. But, until clear-cut objective undeniable evidence of either does come to light, disbelief is perfectly justified.
It is a common tactic to try to throw this claim back onto the skeptics. It often works on people who are not well-trained on how to argue from a scientific framework. But, it doesn't work in an environment where sound science is practices. In short, one has to provide good evidence that the claim they are supporting is true, the skeptics do not have to disprove every possible alternative until are none left. If you want to convince me that aloe helps soothe fish in tanks, then provide evidence that it does. I am not going to believe in the claim until it is disproven. You can believe if you want, but it isn't scientifically sound.
6) There is evidence to support the claims about peat moss and almond leaves. I don't think that either soothes fish in a fish tank, but they at least have a place in fish tanks. The science behind peat moss is very well documented in Diana Walstad's book
Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. Almost leaves have been used by breeders for quite some time as a spawning trigger. Yes, this evidence isn't as strong as a good well-documented peer-reviewed scientific paper, but the evidence of the experience of many breeders does carry some weight. Maybe it is just a "good luck charm" and doesn't add anything. Until there is a good double-blind study, we may never know. But the point is that there is evidence for their claims.
The reason I said I am skeptical about melfix and pimafix is because of how many people also use them as "good luck charms". Both ingredients do have anti-microbial functions, but both are admittedly mild. Both are very good about being able to kill certain specific species of microbes ( see
http/www.reefland.com/forum/marine-fish-...don-t-work.html for a post of someone who talked with an API employee). But, they aren't very broad at all. Furthermore, the same ingredients in melafix and pimafix are often sold as miracle cures by again people trying to scam others. This doesn't mean that they don't do what they say, it is just that I have a very skeptical opinion about them when they are claimed to do so much. Again, I find that the evidence is lacking, so skepticism is justified.
7) This forum is all about discussing these things in more detail. Again, I helped found this section. This section is about instead of 1 person looking for evidence, it is about asking other people what evidence they have found. The questions of defining words and demanding unbiased objective evidence above and beyond anecdote are what science is about, and what this section is about. At the very least, now that I am moderating this section, this is my vision for this section. The more technical parts of the hobby do come up here, too, but they too will be asked to provide evidence if requested. For example, we can discuss a fish's circulatory system and if someone claims that a fish's heart beats 1000 times a minute, we aren't just going to accept that. There will need to be evidence provided to back that up. The discussion and the evidence should go hand in hand.
Frankly, I don't think that there is anywhere near enough of this in the other parts of the forum, too. But, that is why we sectioned this part off, so that there is a place specifically to ask for more evidence.
Your reaction isn't all that uncommon when asking for more evidence. So many people take it as an insult or that it is otherwise wrong to be skeptical. I don't understand where this attitude comes from. On the one hand, we are all skeptical about many things: no one would believe me if I tried to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. But, my personal belief is that somewhere in there the idea of political correctness jumped from just accepting people of different colors and races and religions and the like over to also accepting other people's ideas equally. But science just isn't like that. Science supports the point of view that has the best evidence. Best being defined as fitting the idea or hypothesis the best, or the most unbiased, most objective, or most clear. Science is also very skeptical of ideas that aren't well supported. It certainly doesn't mean that the unsupported idea is wrong -- just that it is unsupported. Skepticism when presented with unsupported ideas is not wrong -- because until an idea is unsupported it doesn't have to be believed. It isn't politically incorrect to call someone on their unsupported belief.
The "some semblance" phrase was put into the rules to acknowledge that not all evidence is either available or equal. Similarly, levels of personal belief aren't going to be equal, either. For may people, anecdote may be an acceptable level of belief. For me, it is not. Again, Purity's anecdote is "some semblance" of evidence, but to me it is unconvincing. And that is all I was stating, that that level of evidence did not convince me.
8) Regarding Stress Coat or Proper pH. I addressed these somewhat above. Just because these products contain aloe in them, does not mean that aloe necessarily does anything. Again, there are many people and companies willing to sell you something that you hope will work. And may even work because of the aforementioned placebo effect. It is called marketing.
This is the unfortunate state of living in today's world. There are many, many ways that others are hoping to separate your money from you. In the best case, all you do is lose some money and buy a product that does no harm. In the worst case, you lose some money and buy a product that actually does some harm -- either to your fish tank or even to yourself. A lot of this industry is unfortunately unregulated and manufacturers have gotten very good about skirting the very edge of the law about what they can and cannot claim on their labels. The ornamental fish industry is basically completely unregulated in the U.S. The health supplement industry is almost completely unregulated, the companies just have to be sure that they don't claim that their products are directly medicinal. I.e. they can't claim that a supplement will "cure" cancer, but "preventing" is allowed. There does not have to be any proof that what they write on the bottle is actually true. And, it is the same way with the products they sell for fish.
In fact, there are products that make completely false claims on their packaging. The packaging for aquarium salt has several flat out wrong statements on it.
9) Finally, I am getting tired of the thinly veiled insults. Everyone else in this thread has been very professional and respectful. and no insults (thinly veiled or not) have been directed at you. You have been throwing off-handed snipes at me with almost every post. This is my section to moderate, and if I had wanted to give you a temporary suspension, it would have been in my rights. I do not need your help moderating my section, thank you very much. We may disagree, but we have to be respectful to one another at all times on this forum.
I also do feel that you have been skirting the rules of this section by not following the rules of good science. Claiming that I have to prove that aloe doesn't soothe is one such example. Saying that asking for evidence is not what this section is about is another as asking for evidence is the very core of what good science is about. This section first and foremost is about practicing good science as it applies to the hobby of fishkeeping. Trying to practice bad science or shortcut the rules of good science are not permitted in this section.
I will admit that the rules need a clean-up. I was never satisfied with them in the first place, and I just haven't had the time to do a re-write since I have taken over this section. I hope that this post will help clear some things up, and specifically let you know that I consider following good science a rule for posting in this section.
Between my posts above and this post, I hope that you will consider this a clarification of what is and is not good science, and if you should chose to post bad science in spite of that I have taken time to clarify here, I will impose sanctions. At this time I am not going to, because I do have the utmost hope that this was all just a misunderstanding and I hope that I have at least a little bit explained to you the difference between good and bad science. If there are any questions about this, I do hope that you will ask. But, make no mistake, I will not allow proponents of bad science to continue to post here.
I also have been extraordinarily busy lately, so I have not been able to tackle every single point. I hope that this post does most of that. I may not be able to address every single new point that you come up with in the immediate future, but if you post with respect and good science, everything here will run a lot more smoothly.
