Science/in Depth Forum

[andywg]

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!

Try Google Scholar to begin with. It is not ideal, but it does help. However, as mentioned below, many of the hits are just extracts, and not the whole text.

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

However, many abstracts cover the general findings, and if someone who has access to the paper read it they could at least give us their opinion of the methods used and any possible drawbacks, non?

I do like the idea of discussing some of the other sites, such as WWM, as there are very good articles and information out there in the hyperweb.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Sorry I got on this one a little late but I want to say that I'm definately behind this one 100%. I've been growing a bit bored with the forum lately to be honest, only hanging around the general section; I think it is because it is not intelectually stimulating enough for me anymore. I got into fishkeeping because of my interest in tetrodotoxin and it's potential use as an analgesic alternative to opiate based drugs; I've done tons of reading on that subject and would love a forum to be able to discuss that interest with others. As steelhealr stated it could give some of us academic types a mental workout that I for one have been lacking.

I know we have some great minds on here and maybe this forum would give them another incentive to stick around.

I do hope this works out.

SLC

 

[steelhealr]

Noted..some of us may have access to papers, which, with permission, could be summarized. I don't see any issues with discussing papers....copying them without permission is a different story. We are coming up on a weekend, so, not sure what progress will be made, but, I have forwaded this link and comments to admin. I agree....small as it maybe, it maybe nice to have a forum to step up discussion to a more scientific level.

SH

 

[Danno]

A lot of research papers once they are publicized can be, with absolute correct citation, can be referenced if written into a response and or paper written by someone.

It is just very important to use correct citation along with superscript inside of the response or thread on direct information used by a document as citation on a scientific document is in CSE style.

Here is a link to a website that shows the correct way to cite.

Diana Hacker's Website (link on CSE style format)

 

[steelhealr]

Hi..some good news. It looks like Admin is going to START THIS FORUM. Congratulations to the members who suggested it and supported it. Although it is not confirmed as yet, the discussion is that the forum would be under the Aquarium Section. Although there is no mod appointed yet, I have volunteered to oversee it. Other mods are welcome as well.

If there are any members interested in working with this section, speak your piece. The section will need a clear Forum Rules and eventually an FAQ section. These should be created seriously..similar to Bignoses' suggestion and what we would expect from requirements to publish a paper in a real science journal. Any volunteers for this? Also, I would be open, via PM, to any links to use for a first paper discussion if and when the forum is started.

SH

 

[WILDER]

Well done sh.

 

[Bignose]

I am very excited to read that news SH, and am looking forward to getting the science forum up and running ASAP.

And on that note, just throwing some words together here, but I think that the following are some of the 'science rules' that should be in place. Everyone, please feel free to add/revise/discuss anything I wrote here. I'd like them to convey the feelings that as a science based subforum, there are certain expectations that should be met, but at the same time right now I think they may be a little too, um, intimidating is the best word I can think of. I no way do I want to scare people off if they don't think they can support their arguments with good evidence -- because asking and answering questions scientifically is also great. However, again, I also don't want people to be able to post "I put tabasco sauce in my tank and I think that my fish are healthier now so I think it is great!" and then expect the forum to embrace that idea.




This is a scientific based subforum of TFF. As such, a post in this subforum will be held to higher standards than the rest of the forum.

1) The principles of good science should govern the contents of all posts. These principles include:

a) Evidence* must be presented that supports your claim/idea.
B) Direct questions about your ideas must be answered in a timely manner.
c) Proper citation/acknowledgement of previous work should be given.
d) Science is based on logical conclusions based on observations.

2) If you have some idea that goes against commonly held current theory, you are welcome to post it. However, people will attack your arguments with glee and fervor in this subforum. If you cannot handle that kind of attack, perhaps you need to rethink your idea, as well. Remember: you came to this forum. This is what science does, it will probe and prod and attack any new idea to find the weaknesses and limitations of a new theory. If your theory is strong, it will be able to stand up to such questioning, and may even become part of the commonly held current theory.

3) Try to avoid using any of the common fallacies (http/www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/). Using them severely weakens any argument you try to make.

4) In particular, Ad Hominem attacks will not be permitted. These are attacks against the person and not the theories/evidence/ideas they present. This includes but is not limited to name-calling. If you disagree with a person's ideas, find the evidence that backs up your point of view.

5) Science is NOT a democracy. Just because a large number of people believe something or a large number of websites say something, does not necessarily mean that that something is a fact. There should be documented facts to back up

6) Scientifically, the use of words like theory, belief and knowledge have rather specific meanings, and those meanings are not the same as used in everyday language. Please read the FAQ if you are unfamiliar with the way these words are used in a scientific context.

7) Skepticism is a very significant part of science, so expect it to be applied liberally to any statements you make in this subforum. As regarding 4) above, do not take this personally, present more objective evidence to support your point of view.

* There is a wide range of evidence that can be presented. On the side of very strong evidence would be a well-planned set of experiments from which a statistically significant amount of data was gathered objectively and from which a confident conclusion can be drawn -- normally this level of work is what has been published in the scientific journals. On the side of very weak evidence is performing an act one time and drawing conclusions from that, especially if it is just based on your personal word. No, it is not that we don't believe you, it is just that your personal word is an example of anecdote, and anecdote is a very weak form of evidence. This is part of the reason good documentation is necessary to support claims. Finally, if you only present weak evidence to support your idea, do not expect too many people to convert to your point of view.

 

[steelhealr]

If and when the forums is up and going, I will use what is good for the FAQ section. Thanks Bignose...I will be following your cues. I"m hoping William follows thru on this and I hope we can find a nice lead off paper to discuss. SH

 

[Miss Wiggle]

sounds good to me bignose, my only worry is that it would be ignored by many as a lot of pinned topics are. i know this is a common problem and it's pretty difficult to get around. the idea earlier of some sort of pop up before you post in the science forum was mentioned, i think someone should try to follow this through if possible.

another alternative (although i have no clue if this is possible or not) is to do it as a terms and conditions type thing. Before your first post in the science sub forum you'd be presented with the page with the details bignose has given, you have to click that you accept them before you are allowed to post initially. admittedly not all people won't read through them all, but if at least the following section was put right at the top a decent percentage of people would see it and take this into consideration.

people will attack your arguments with glee and fervor in this subforum. If you cannot handle that kind of attack, perhaps you need to rethink your idea, as well. Remember: you came to this forum. This is what science does, it will probe and prod and attack any new idea to find the weaknesses and limitations of a new theory. If your theory is strong, it will be able to stand up to such questioning, and may even become part of the commonly held current theory.

 

[ncjharris]

another alternative (although i have no clue if this is possible or not) is to do it as a terms and conditions type thing. Before your first post in the science sub forum you'd be presented with the page with the details bignose has given, you have to click that you accept them before you are allowed to post initially. admittedly not all people won't read through them all, but if at least the following section was put right at the top a decent percentage of people would see it and take this into consideration.

Thats a good idea.
I have seen that on other forums (not IPb............) so don't know if you can have a mandatory 'entrance' page.

 

[steelhealr]

I'm not sure we would get a pop up, but, perhaps there can be an agreement page under the FAQ that says by posting your reponse there (eg, I agree to the above), you agree to the rules of the forum.Only thing is, people have the right to edit their posts. SH

 

[pica_nuttalli]

or we can just pin the rules and if someone breaks them, enforce them. if they complain, then we point out that hey, we have rules here. not our fault you didn't read the thing at the top of the page that says "THESE ARE THE RULES. READ BEFORE POSTING."

 

[Bignose]

or we can just pin the rules and if someone breaks them, enforce them. if they complain, then we point out that hey, we have rules here. not our fault you didn't read the thing at the top of the page that says "THESE ARE THE RULES. READ BEFORE POSTING."

This is more of what I envisoned. If someone tries to break the rules, i.e. they post without following good scientific priciples, I'd rather see turned into a learning experience about how real science is performed. At least here in the U.S., the sciecne education that the average student gets is pretty horrible, and I have zero doubt that the average person thinks that "science" means standing in a laboratory with lots of beakers and test tubes and bubbling fluid all over the room. Rather than be enforcers of the rules, I'd like to see a fair amount of leeway given to steer a poster towards the way science works -- i.e. drawing conclusions from observation, performing experiments, doing enough experiments to get statisitical signifigance, learning to critque/evaluate the quality of the evidence provided, etc. If a person still refuses to follow the rules, then the posts can be deleted/locked whatever the mods deem necessary. But, I think that the average person probably is very unfamiler with following all the guidlines I wrote out, so turning it into a learning experience would really be the best way of getting familar.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

or we can just pin the rules and if someone breaks them, enforce them. if they complain, then we point out that hey, we have rules here. not our fault you didn't read the thing at the top of the page that says "THESE ARE THE RULES. READ BEFORE POSTING."

This is more of what I envisoned. If someone tries to break the rules, i.e. they post without following good scientific priciples, I'd rather see turned into a learning experience about how real science is performed. At least here in the U.S., the sciecne education that the average student gets is pretty horrible, and I have zero doubt that the average person thinks that "science" means standing in a laboratory with lots of beakers and test tubes and bubbling fluid all over the room. Rather than be enforcers of the rules, I'd like to see a fair amount of leeway given to steer a poster towards the way science works -- i.e. drawing conclusions from observation, performing experiments, doing enough experiments to get statisitical signifigance, learning to critque/evaluate the quality of the evidence provided, etc. If a person still refuses to follow the rules, then the posts can be deleted/locked whatever the mods deem necessary. But, I think that the average person probably is very unfamiler with following all the guidlines I wrote out, so turning it into a learning experience would really be the best way of getting familar.

this is what i think science is

but seriously, your bang on, while i'm very excited about this forum and think there will be a lot of interesting stuff there, I'd be slightly afraid of posting in there as my scientific knowledge is pretty much non existant and I strongly suspect if I do post anything in there it'll be to ask someone to explain something I haven't understood or ask a question. I wouldn't want to see newbies or people like me being too firmly discouraged from posting at all, just to be shown the rules and guidelines and explained why and how they should adhere to them.

 

[andywg]

science