Science/in Depth Forum

[Danno]

science

A dancing....test.....tube......


uhhhhhmmmm..........

.......

...
...
........
.
..
.
...................................................................................................

I competely lost my train of thought....

.....
.

 

[steelhealr]

Should we make that the FAQ page opening link? LOL. SH

 

[dwarfgourami]

Just found this topic and am feeling very excited about it. I could do with a bit more scientific content, and tbh with a forum where it is made clear that you do discuss without acrimony and according to certain rules. Am getting to the stage myself where I'd like to move up from basic fishkeeping to a bit more understanding of what is going on, and could do with some pointers for good reading.

I very much agree with miss Wiggle that the wording of the guidelines should make it clear that you can ask simple questions or say you dont understand, that every post doesn't have to be an a scholarly paper in itself. Also with the point that beginners should be shown how to do science rather than immediately banned because they can't. So the whole thing will be more or less like an academic seminar, where you discuss a set problem. Sounds good to me

When I was at university we had weekly discussion seminars which included everbody from professores emeriti right down to M.A. students and even third-years. They were very stimulating places.

 

[nmonks]

Just a quick comment. I'd sooner there were *less* rules than *more*. I understand why people want this section to be "real science" but I think that's better demonstrated by deeds rather than words. The aquarists with science backgrounds probably agree about most things; what will be valuable here will be for people with different backgrounds being able to contribute observations and theories. If the "scientists" can explain how and why research has demonstrated certain things, there's value to that for everyone else in the forum. If experienced hobbyists have observations to the contrary, those are valuable.

I'd perhaps add that some scientists are appaling aquarists, and I don't believe scientists have anything like the Royal Road to proper fishkeeping.

Cheers, Neale

 

[Fella]

My scientific knowledge is limited to say the least (but that doesn't mean i don't enjoy learning) but, for this forum, could I still use it to ask the questions I would want answers to? Questions of why things happen, and what is the science behind them? Would that fall in line with the spirit of the science forum?

 

[steelhealr]

I agree with nmonks, even from the medical standpoint....some of the greatest medical researchers are HORRIBLE CLINICIANS. My old partner, retired, uses to say that you can be a technically excellent surgeon, but, if you don't know what you are doing, you can get yourself in a lot of trouble; you can be a technically mediocre operator, but, if you know your science and anatomy, you can get yourself out of any predicament.

I would hope that this new forum would be place where, either a science topic, current paper or, an area of science related to aquarism, could be presented here and discussed in a scholarly fashion. It shouldn't matter if you are new or have published 75 papers....all should be welcome to participate. I DO THINK that there should be SOME element of 'decorum' here...mostly respect for others.

If there are any rules that need to be printed, agreeing with nmonks, they should mostly relate to protecting intellectual property. To my knowledge, there is usually NO problem with discussing a paper.

I want to add ....as bignose and nmonks are probably aware of, the relatively 'new' term: evidence-based results. I should think that we have enough experienced aquarists there that, discussions could start with the experience of individuals here who have amassed enough experience to present it here.

I already like how this discussion is going. It shows, to me, that this new forum has promise.

WTG.

SH

 

[nmonks]

Indeed, but it is worth explaining what "evidence" means in a scientific context.

Over in the Oddballs forum, another experienced fishkeeper and I had a difference of opinion in whether or not a certain species should be kept in brackish water. He'd kept several of these fish for long periods of time in freshwater, and never had trouble. I was quoting from the natural history of the fish in the wild, which is unambiguous about them having a brackish water distribution. Did either of us have "evidence"?

No. Experience doesn't prove anything unless run against a control, i.e., a dozen fish were kept in brackish water and a dozen fish in freshwater, and both sets of fish were maintained under otherwise identical conditions. Experience without a control is anecdote, not evidence. Yes, it is a data point, but no, it isn't compelling enough to prove a point.

Likewise, my argument taken from natural history is an hypothesis not a proof. An hypothesis in this case says that this species of fish will do better under conditions like those in the wild than in any other set of conditions. But an hypothesis isn't evidence without testing.

In other words, science has different standards to "common sense" in as much as arguments can be based upon anecodatal experiences or hypotheses, but they aren't proved by them.

Cheers, Neale

I want to add ....as bignose and nmonks are probably aware of, the relatively 'new' term: evidence-based results. I should think that we have enough experienced aquarists there that, discussions could start with the experience of individuals here who have amassed enough experience to present it here.

 

[The-Wolf]

any news yet?
is this forum going to appear or not, if so when?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

i suspect the answer given will be much the same as on this thread http/www.fishforums.net/Disease-Journal-...um-t192896.html

never know though i may be wrong

 

[steelhealr]

Sigh....awaiting admin. SH

 

[andywg]

Possible solution?

 

[steelhealr]

Well....it's arrived. I am looking to see who would be interested in working to get up a set of guidelines. The sooner we can do this, the quicker we can all decide on a first topic and start enjoying our new section.

Congrats to all who pushed for this.

SH

 

[andywg]

I believe bignose will be possibly the best person to look for as he already has involvement in another forum that has a similar outlook (evidence based research).

I think the main guidelines should include

1) No "normal questions"

An example would be to have no topics on "how do I cycle?". These sort of questions are dealt with elsewhere in the forum.

However, classifying exactly what would warrant discussion in the forum would be somewhat hard, and by no means a defined line in the sand. Questions on the actual mechanics of the filter bacteria and their reproduction, for example, should be welcome.

2) A reminder that those making the claim against the general held line have to provide some evidence on which they make said claim. No "you can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I am right" arguments.

3) A statement that ad hominem attacks are not welcome and will just show that your position is without locus standi. Possibly ban repeated trollers and flamers from this part of the forum?

Perhaps most importantly

4) A welcome for those who are not fully understanding the debate to request a more "laymen's" version. Also, comparing the situation to how they believe it effects the real world should be welcomed. This will ensure that those with a less scientific, or analytical, brain can still get the fullest understanding of what is being discussed.

We do not want the forum to become a clique of those who believe they are superior in knowledge and understanding to others, but encourage everyone to learn and understand a little bit further.


There are a couple of good topics I have noted recently which could make good starts:

1) Discussions on exaclty what bacteria perform the filtering in our aquaria. Obvious focus points will be the research of Hovanec et al into Nitrospira v Nitrobacter, as well as looking at differences between marine, brackish and FW strains (and those strains that appear to only occur in low pH waters).

2) Recent research indicates that a low voltage applied to reefs increases SPS growth by up to 400% and survivability up to ten fold. I would love to find out just a little bit more on this than I have been able to find out thus far (I posted a topic in the marine section here but it has not received much input). This is especially so, considering how many aquarists earth their reef solely to prevent voltage from being measured.

3) The effects of nitrates on fish. Most research I have seen indicates 100ppm as an absolutely safe level, with some places quoting figures in excess of 1,000ppm. I would love the oppurtunity to discuss whether any other papers touch on this subject (Tom Barr did a good post in the planted forum recently covering this section).


Some food for thought there, I hope.