Science/in Depth Forum

[Birdie]

Excellent idea.
I would have nothing to contribute, but would most certainly read with great interest. Like Miss Wiggle, I have learned much from reading the scientific threads, and really value them. Frankly, I don't think it would actually be that low in traffic - not in terms of how many people *read*, anyway. Or possibly I'm just delusional But even if I am, I'd certainly lke to see the idea go ahead

 

[steelhealr]

Some discussion has begun on this as a new forum, however, there are some concerns and we'd be interested in your comments. Concerns about this forum include the following:

• how would this forum be structured? Would there just be one forum for everything or subforums?
• How would topics be listed or organized to keep them in order or easy to find?
• What would be the name of the forum?
• How would one keep hot topics from turning into arguments and would there be a person needed to monitor for false information/claims/citations and monitor for plagiarism?

Thanks. SH and admin.

 

[Danno]

Well this is what I think from bullet to bullet

•One forum because sub-forums would be too specific. Sub-forums would be too large of an area.
•Use pinned treads and leave responses in them to organize the info
•"The Scientific Aquarium"
•The only way to keep threads from going bad is a pinned thread with rules. If anything gets out of hand the moderators are the only people who can do something

 

[n3ont3tra]

Some discussion has begun on this as a new forum, however, there are some concerns and we'd be interested in your comments. Concerns about this forum include the following:

• how would this forum be structured? Would there just be one forum for everything or subforums?
• How would topics be listed or organized to keep them in order or easy to find?
• What would be the name of the forum?
• How would one keep hot topics from turning into arguments and would there be a person needed to monitor for false information/claims/citations and monitor for plagiarism?

Thanks. SH and admin.

I think there should be a few subforums: Freshwater chemistry, freshwater fish, saltwater chemistry, and saltwater fish.

I don't agree with the pinned threads, I think it would lead to too many pinned threads. Maybe one pinned thread with rules and another pinned thread with the more commonly brought up subjects and links to specific topics.

"The Scientific Aquarium" sounds good to me!

I think if a person says anything without giving credit for it, the post/topic should be deleted.

 

[Danno]

n3ont3tra- The subforums sounds more of a good idea now; but, wouldn't just "Freshwater" and "Saltwater" be enough for 'em?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

Some discussion has begun on this as a new forum, however, there are some concerns and we'd be interested in your comments. Concerns about this forum include the following:

• how would this forum be structured? Would there just be one forum for everything or subforums?
• How would topics be listed or organized to keep them in order or easy to find?
• What would be the name of the forum?
• How would one keep hot topics from turning into arguments and would there be a person needed to monitor for false information/claims/citations and monitor for plagiarism?

Thanks. SH and admin.

i'd say just one forum at least initially, it probbly wouldn't be very high traffic so dividing it up could just be confusing and not really nescessary. if the section does end up with a lot of topics it could always be divided down later. i'm not sure fresh and saltwater is the right distinction to make, surley lots of topics would cross over between the two?

same as every other forum IMO, pin a few key issues or popular topics, could have a pinned topic of the week or something like that. asls first topic in the pins should be rules about plagarism, what you can scientifically state as fact, providing evidence to support your claims etc. basically the equivalent of what you'd be taught in school if they were teaching you how to write a scientific report.

i like 'the scientific aquarium' too

i wouldn't say you nescessarily need a mod to look for false claims etc but i think it would definatley need to be moderated by someone with a fairly decent scientific background who can make a judgement call if problems arise.

 

[Birdie]

I would have thought that if there is any worry about low traffic beng an issue, then sub-forums would only exaggerate the situation. I for one would still be interested in reading about SW science - and if anyone isn't interested, they can simply not open the thread. If there really is such an enormous flood of threads, then low-traffic wasn't a problem after all, and perhaps sub-forums could be set up then- when there is a demonstrable need for them.

Would there be a need for topics to be listed? Why couldn't it work in the same way as any other forum, with pins and FAQs, and other subjects slowly dropping off the page, but still searchable? The search facility here is pretty good - and if one was looking for a particular subject or thread, a search for that specifically within "The Scientific Aquarium" forum would be easy enough to do.

Re the monitoring - if the thread turns into a ridiculous slanging match, then it either gets moderated like any other forum on TFF (particularly if the family-friendly policy also extends there) or it is left to its own devices. There is a fine line between moderating and suppressing debate, but if things deteriorate to name-calling and a repetitive stalemate, then lock it, at least temporarily. Or clean it up and let it get back to the proper subject. If the letters to scientific journals take a nose-dive in such a manner, they are simply no longer published and everyone has to move on . Until the next time LOL.
I do have something of a laissez-faire attitude to these things though, unless there is name-calling, insults or clear trolling/beating of dead horses. However, I can see that the occasional moderating reminder of the difference between anecdote and evidence might be in order .....a firmly worded pin clearly laying down the expectations of standards of threads, posts and behaviour and the *scientific* basis of the forum would be useful. I do see that there might be a problem with people pitching in with the usual nonsense about how they have done x for three weeks, and it seems to be working just fine, and that alwyas carries a risk of thread derailment and general train-wrecking. But hopefully the generally learned tone of the forum will deter much of this - and I think that even if it does happen, the forum will still be worthwhile, and it will be a price worth paying in order to have such a fascinating and informative area of the board.

Regarding false claims and plagiarism, I think that checking the facts of every post and claim would simply be far too onerous a burden for the mods, and that it would probablyhave to be to a large extent naturally self-regulating. Person A makes unfounded claim - persons B, C and D request evidence and produce opposing evidence themselves. Person A starts posturing and filibustering, and spouting patent nonsense (which is, hopefully, eventually ignored by everyone else, having the mental attitude [even if not actual years] of mature and sensible adults) or goes strangely quiet. Or interesting and challenging evidence is produced, and debate continues.

And as for names - I think "The Scientific Aquarium" has it covered.

 

[andywg]

I agree that one forum to start. If we divide into FW and SW, what about Brackish?

Many things wil cross over: say we are discussing the actual species of bacteria that deal with nitrogenous waste. There will be some comparriosons about how they change strains/species depending on conditions (my understanding is that once the SG rises above 1.005 you start to have diffrent bacteria deal with the waste, similarly once the pH of FW drops below 5 a different type of bacteria become prevalent).

I would rather it got divided on other grounds (eventually) such as biology and chemistry (though these two will cross very well). I think that is a bridge to cross when the science forum gets very popular and busy.

I would leave the forum as a standard one to start with. If it becomes very popular then we can start to do FAQ pins, or group pins to the most relevant stuff (so a pin with links to all the threads about bacteria, for example).

The name is of little importance to me, but there seems to be a consensus, so I will go with that.

The big point is moderating the posts and false claims. I have a couple of points here:

1) In another forum a reminder comes up when you post a reply that the last reply was a long time ago. I can't remember if that forum was invision or not, but would it be possible to have a notice come up reminding people that they are posting in a science based forum?

2) Baseless/false claims: This would be a science forum. Any claims that go against the generally held view (and hopefully many that support it) should be supported in some way. Preferably peer reviewed research, but then one can always post a website. Others can then view the website and consider what is there.

Furthermore, Bignose is almost certainly going to have a large input here and is more than capable of pulling the odd scientific paper out, and does so on many threads (such as the chloramine post). From there baseless claims will be able to be refuted.

Finally, it will operate on a scientific basis. People will soon see a standard response to baseless claims that if they cannot support there view with science then it will be ignored if evidence contradicts it or, at best, considered less likely.

I would like to think the forum would need less moderating as the people who generally would take part would be reasonable and at least respect other people's view and then look for research to see what is actually supported.

The time for moderation would be when the ID statements are made ("no research shows that my claim isn't true, therefore it is just as likely"). Those sorts of posts very quickly end up causing problems.

Perhaps we would need a scientific terms pin? We could then set out how "theory" means something different in Science, and also point out how double blind research works and such like, so people who are not sure about these things can see why debates turn out how they do?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

1) In another forum a reminder comes up when you post a reply that the last reply was a long time ago. I can't remember if that forum was invision or not, but would it be possible to have a notice come up reminding people that they are posting in a science based forum?

i've seen that on an invision forum before

Perhaps we would need a scientific terms pin? We could then set out how "theory" means something different in Science, and also point out how double blind research works and such like, so people who are not sure about these things can see why debates turn out how they do?

that's the point i was getting at but explained a lot better

 

[steelhealr]

Thread input has been post in the mod area and will discuss with admin. SH

 

[Bignose]

I participate on a few other science related forums. As you can imagine, it does bring out a lot people with Against The Mainstream (ATM) ideas, and these are generally welcomed, if and only if the poster will actually try to discuss the points they make rationally. Here is a copy and paste for the rules about ATM and conspiracy theory ideas (taken from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (BAUT) forums, http/www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845 ):

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately.

(emphasis and underlining mine)

With the proper modifications, something similar could easily be adapted to the fish science forum.

The big points are the ones I underlined and bolded. The bolded part basically says: Claims/ideas/theories have to be backed up by some semblance of fact. Evidence has to be cited, and direct questions that have direct answers need to be answered in a timely manner or the claims dropped. If you browse through the BAUT forums, the policy has worked pretty well there. If someone comes up with a new idea and they haven't done any math or science backing up their ideas, the thread is usually closed pretty quickly.

The underlined part is important too, and I personally have ran into this on this forum. It was a while back, but the most dramatic example of this was when the first poster wanted to use grapefruit seed extract in her tank. When I posted how when the scientific studies were performed there was no effect, that in fact the preservatives added to the grapefruit seed extract were the agents killing the microbes, she was pretty unhappy but still unbelieving. When I told her to go read the papers herself, she thought I was insulting her intelligence. I was just trying to show her that it wasn't just me, but the actual scientists doing the research that thought grapefruit seed extract was bogus.

I can see this set of circumstances happening again, so people need to be warned that the scientists are not going to openly embrace any new ideas that anyone might post. The wording "attacked with fervor and glee" is particularly good, I think. Knowing myself and this is evident in my post history, when facts support one point of view and there is little or no facts on the other point of view, I can be very resilient in not letting it go. You may call it something else, but I feel like all I am trying to do is get the other person to use some critical thinking skills of their own. I am trying to get them to see why a website posted by the manufacturer of a product is not the most trustworthy of places to get your facts. etc. etc.

Finally, it is a great idea to have a FAQ of what science terms mean. For a while now, I have been collecting articles on techniques on how to talk with "the man on the street" about science and I think I have some very good ideas on how to present that. So, on that note, I volunteer to help write up such an FAQ if (hopefully) TFF launches a fish science forum. Frankly, if there is anything else that needs to be done to get this launched, I'll volunteer to help with almost anything to get this started.

 

[nmonks]

Hello all,

For what it's worth, I kind of like SH's idea of modelling this after a journal club. In fact, why not just call it "Journal Club", and make the point it's about discussion of *published* articles, pros and cons, rather than personal opinions and experiences (though those may be useful during the critique).

I think working around a particular paper, magazine article, or web page makes a lot of sense. Perhaps as weekly events (or as often as people find good stuff). I'd quite like to see people run topics by a moderator first, not so much to keep out bad ideas (discussing bad ideas can be useful) but to pace things, so that there is, say, one new topic a week.

By the same token, I'd encourage moderators to shut down each discussion after a while. Just as with a journal club, at some point, lunch break is over and you have to go back to the classroom!

Some scientific papers are available freely online; ditto articles on respected web sites (Planet Catfish, Reef Central, Wet Web, etc.). For purely practical reasons, we might want to favour discussions of articles from those sorts of places to being with, so that people can get involved easily. I'm sure some of us have access to online science journals through academic libraries, but not all of us, and sharing such articles without the author's permission is a legally grey area. Actually, it isn't grey at all, it's illegal. Sadly, journals are all about profit now and not scientific communication.

I think dividing into freshwater and seawater is silly. The scientific essentials are identical.

Think that covers everything!

Cheers, Neale

 

[OohFeeshy]

Perhaps a sort of 'mini-mod' could be appointed? Like, someone who knows the 'proper' way to go about science and is in charge of PMing those who don't follow the rules? Helps keep the jobs of the main mods down (plus there's a lot of times when descisions would be hard to make), keeps it *fairly* friendly. Of course, if things go too far 'proper' mods could be summoned, but hopefully that wouldn't be a problem.

RE subforums, I think having the areas more scientific as opposed to 'SW' and 'FW' would be better. Although maybe the forums should be related more to fishkeeping- I mean, a lot of the topics will be about cycling and such as opposed to being seperated into simple groups like chemistry.

 

[steelhealr]

Hi...I enjoyed the inputs by Bignose and nmonks and oohfeeshy. The input actually looks exciting even if the forum would be a small group probably to start. What I also think is interesting, is, it will give some more of our science/research oriented members a place to 'mentally exercise' outside of the regular 'cycling' questions.

Although admin can't keep adding moderators ad infinitum, I DO think it would be a great idea to have 1, 2 or 3 members appointed to micro-manage the site with moderator overseering. This might help to keep it running smoothly since not EVERYONE can be present all the time.

Bignose, if this works out on a trial basis, I will mention your interest to Admin. I will forward the above comments. Rarely do we see things suggested here that go forward..this looks promising. The newsletter was another successful venture. SH

 

[Miss Wiggle]

glad it seems to be happening, i think this is one of the most interesting and worthwhile suggestions put forward in a long time.

Some scientific papers are available freely online; ditto articles on respected web sites (Planet Catfish, Reef Central, Wet Web, etc.). For purely practical reasons, we might want to favour discussions of articles from those sorts of places to being with, so that people can get involved easily. I'm sure some of us have access to online science journals through academic libraries, but not all of us, and sharing such articles without the author's permission is a legally grey area. Actually, it isn't grey at all, it's illegal. Sadly, journals are all about profit now and not scientific communication

regarding this it might be helpful to those of us who wouldn't normally try and look up scientific papers if there's a pinned topic telling you which sites to check, how you can search for that sort of thing. I know I wouldn't have a clue where to start but having a forum where I could discuss things I'd looked up would certainly encourage me to!