Scientific Forum Guidance

[fry_lover]

Hello

Although it wasn't specifically designed to do so, i love the way the Scientific forum eliminates (or at the least vastly reduces) the general of the Tropical Discussion Forum

Anyway.......

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things, as sometimes i would like to post a topic and would prefer it to go in the Scientific Forum but wonder if it more belongs in the Tropical Discussion forum, an example of what i want to post today is a topic along the lines of "factors and their level of influence with chlorine leaving the water" I want to try and find out a bit more about how efficient certain "environments" are at driving off chlorine (high oxygen levels, colder temperature, sunlight etc) including high levels of chlorine such as used in chlorine based household bleach and regular tap-water levels.

Looking at my above example, would you say Scientific Forum or Tropical Discussion?

But the thing is, i am not starting a "debate" as such and am not bringing a debate "to the table" really. I just want some feedback and to tap into some knowledge that is on the forum (members).

Do threads in the Scientific Forum need to be a "debate"?

Let me quote a couple of lines from the Scentific Forum Posting Guidlines for clarification please.....

This forum was brought to life by the desires of our own members and will be a place to discuss and elaborate on topics of interest that relate to the science behind our aquariums I have added the under-lines
with regards to the above i would say a discussion about chlorine/bleach does involve science most definitly, and could belong in the scientific forum

Please present your topics and posts to a level comparable to a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. Please try to use current scientific taxonomy (as best as possible).
I simply don't know what this means, if we've never seen or can't remember what a "peer-reviewed scientific journal article" looks like we are kind of "snookered" aren't we?

In acknolwedgement, i could go and Google around for "peer-reviewed scientific journal articles" and find out what "scientific taxonomy" means, but is this is a realistic expectation of myself, having to read the guidelines to a forum and then having to hit Google to have it interpreted for me? If it is a realistic expectation, then i could live with that, i just wanted to check thats all

It's not meant to be a rant at all, just seeking some clarification

 

[backtotropical]

Hi,

I'm not the best person to clarify what is "comparable to a peer-reviewed scientific journal article", so i will leave that for someone else.

I can say that i (and others) have posted subjects for debate, and i think so long as it is with regard to the scientific side of the hobby, and it can at least prompt a scientific discussion, it should be ok.

Just my thoughts.

 

[rdd1952]

The Scientific Forum was designed as a forum that any claims or posts made were to be backed up by references to prove the point being made. Unfortunately a lot of the posts are still based on personal experience or belief (I'm guilty too). However, there is nothing wrong with starting a topic where you are just looking for an answer. You can simply state what you want to know such as the chlorine issue and let others that are more knowledgeable (and have the resources to find the info) in the area provide the evidence and information you need.

 

[bordercollie05]

In school they tell us a peer-reviewed journal article is published in a journal, not a magazine (i.e. The American Journal of Veterinary Medicine). They are almost always research articles published for others doing research in the field. There's a journal for almost every topic, probably there's a couple for fish. Anyway, we always have to use them as sources in school, instead of magazines or websites. I think the format is usually:

I.Hypothesis
II.Experiment
IIa. Methods
IIb. Data
IIc. Results
III. Conclusion: usually this discusses what they would do to improve the experiment or what should be done for further research.

I don't really know anything about the Scientific forum, just filling in on my understanding of a journal article.

Laura

 

[Bignose]

In school they tell us a peer-reviewed journal article is published in a journal, not a magazine (i.e. The American Journal of Veterinary Medicine). They are almost always research articles published for others doing research in the field. There's a journal for almost every topic, probably there's a couple for fish. Anyway, we always have to use them as sources in school, instead of magazines or websites. I think the format is usually:

I.Hypothesis
II.Experiment
IIa. Methods
IIb. Data
IIc. Results
III. Conclusion: usually this discusses what they would do to improve the experiment or what should be done for further research.

I don't really know anything about the Scientific forum, just filling in on my understanding of a journal article.

Laura

This format is going to depend a lot on the field of study. A lot of the medicinal papers (like the vet journal you mention) do follow that format, but a lot of the more physical sciences -- chemistry, physics, engineering -- don't. There are very few chemistry papers where a "hypothesis" is presented as the first topic, for instance. If there is some phenomena by the end of the paper that remains unexplained, then the authors may offer a hypothesis, but usually the experiments are set up to measure and quantify some phenomena.

I never did quite like the wording of the phrase "Please present your topics and posts to a level comparable to a peer-reviewed scientific journal article." because, let's face it, that is quite a high standard to live up to. Frankly, way too high for an Internet forum. I hope no one takes it as an insult, because I in no way mean it to be insulting, but there are very few members who could really write a paper near the level of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. If only because of the limited exposure to papers written to that level, and limited exposure to the necessary references that would have to be cited to be an accepted paper.

But, the point behind the phrase remains true. The idea is that one's opinions and thoughts and feelings on a topic are essentially meaningless without some evidence to back them up. It is not enough to just use your intuition and guess what is happening -- in the world of science you have to have evidence to back up what you say. Evidence in the terms of studies (which tend to be written up the scientific journals) and experiments with controls -- not just anecdotes or stories of a friend of a friend's tank. One of the big points of the scientific section -- at least in my opinion -- is to learn critical evidence evaluation; to not just accept what someone says because they said it. To ask some of the questions that in today's world seem to be un-politically correct. I think that political correctness is trying to ingrain that every idea is equally valid and all the different opinions should be treated equally. This is fine when dealing with things like politics or religion. But, it fails miserably at science. Science is not a democracy. Science does not have to entertain every notion equally -- science demands that there be evidence to back up each idea. A lot of times, the evidence does support different ideas. But, not every single whim, notion, and conjecture has to be taken to heart until there is actually objective evidence to back it up. No evidence? Then science doesn't pay attention. It really is that simple. And, I think that for the overwhelmingly large part, the scientific subforum has done a good job sticking with this concept.

 

[fry_lover]

[/quote]
I never did quite like the wording of the phrase "Please present your topics and posts to a level comparable to a peer-reviewed scientific journal article." because, let's face it, that is quite a high standard to live up to. Frankly, way too high for an Internet forum. I hope no one takes it as an insult, because I in no way mean it to be insulting, but there are very few members who could really write a paper near the level of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. If only because of the limited exposure to papers written to that level, and limited exposure to the necessary references that would have to be cited to be an accepted paper.

But, the point behind the phrase remains true.
[/quote]

I am glad you acknowledge that part Big Nose, although i personally never found it anywhere near insulting, i just needed to clarify it, thanks for your input, the Scientific part of this forum is unique to this formum with regard to the forums i frequent and i do like it and appreciate it

 

[Miss Wiggle]

I agree with Bignose (and certainly don't find it insulting) I know I for one could never write anything to that standard.

I've posted in the scientific forum a couple of times when there's something that I don't know the science behind but want some more evidence to back up or counter the answers that we are giving. I'm not aware that there are any problems with doing so, certainly topics have not been locked or moved or anything like that.

I think anything that encourages scientific debate is fine, what we are expecting from people is that when the question is raised the people who choose to answer it do so in a scientific manner by presenting evidence etc rather than just saying 'i think this'. Or at least if they do say 'i think this' it's more a case of presenting a hypothesis for debate rather than just saying because i think this, that means it's right.

Just my two cents though.

 

[geo7x]

I, too, agree with Bignose.

That particular phrase just alienates 99% of the members on this board who (myself included), unless they have studied the subject in question, would struggle to be able to interpret a 'peer reviewed journal' (requesting it should be to the standard of something that has been under the scrutiny of scholars is quite ridiculous and unachievable by any regular poster) let alone write something to that standard. I concur with Miss Wiggle when I say that Bignose's post was certainly not offensive, infact I find the wording of the rules of the scientific forum quite unnecessary and they carry a certain level of snobbery.

When I backed the idea of a scientific forum I had the idea that it would be about the science behind keeping tropical fish in captivity, not that we would have to produce material to such a high standard.

I would find a rule requesting that all claims are backed up with evidence far more reasonable, and that personal opinion with no evidence behind it to remain unacceptable. This would usually involve reading and getting facts from a journal, however requesting that everything people post has to be to that standard is unnecessary. Producing posts with a formal tone, correct grammar and claims backed up with evidence (with credit to the source) would suffice.

 

[Bignose]

geo, why don't you PM steelhealer -- he's the main mod in the scientific section. We need to be spurred to clean up the rules and statements about the scientific section anyway. This should be a good start.

It would be interesting to know how many members do have something published in a peer-reviewed journal... how many people actually have 1st-hand knowledge of what that "rule" really means... I'd put the over/under at 5, and I'd be really tempted to take the under, but there are more than 35,000 members, quite a lot of whom don't post a lot, so we just don't know a lot about them.

 

[geo7x]

I have sent a message to SH to draw his attention to this thread and have summarised the main points that have made us concerned with this issue. He has not been online for a couple of weeks but hopefully he or another mod will come across this soon.

Apologies to the thread starter if we have swayed off topic slightly without reaching an answer to some of your questions.

 

[fry_lover]

I have sent a message to SH to draw his attention to this thread and have summarised the main points that have made us concerned with this issue. He has not been online for a couple of weeks but hopefully he or another mod will come across this soon.

Apologies to the thread starter if we have swayed off topic slightly without reaching an answer to some of your questions.

No probs, the thread has served it's purpose and i am grateful for the participation

 

[steelhealr]

Would most be happier if that line were removed? SH

 

[Tolak]

How about tagging "whenever possible" on the end? The statement does help set the tone for the scientific section. It is a high standard, but is worth aiming for in my opinion. The scientific section is part of what sets this forum apart, and in my opinion ahead, of others.

There are plenty of times me & my high school education have to put a word into google, I feel I'm better off figuring out what it means. You certainly shouldn't feel left out, or left behind if you have to google for definitions. I feel it's just a little bump in the road to learning, thought with some posts it seems at times I'm navigating the surface of the moon.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

yeah perhaps not removed altogether but re-phrased slightly.....

as Tolak said, it's good to aim high, but we need to be careful that it does not become elitist and that people don't feel excluded from posting.

 

[steelhealr]

Modified a la Tolak. SH