"I have not seen any negative effects."

[Kungpaoshizi]

In all my time on this Earth, I've never seen a better example of the 'mass mentality' than what is witnessed in the aquarium community. Specifically reefing.
The internet does enable more people to come together, but it seems that's a double edged sword.

The title statement makes me think of these scenarios:

The drunk who drinks everyday.
The smoker who can't go 2 days without a cig.
The painter who never wears a mask.
The welder who never wears a ventilation mask.
The asphalt paver who never wears a mask.
The demolition team that don't wear masks.

Why do people continue to say this phrase? What does the phrase mean to you?
I put this in the Reef Discussion section because it seems like a fairly acceptable phrase people use when reefing.

If you're in-tune with what I'm laying down, you'll know that every single example above, deals with carcinogenic and toxic situations that can all lead to serious health problems.

I bring this up because I personally believe only we can form the hobby, so we should leave behind the primitive mentalities like the old methods.

 

[Tahoe61]

Every tank has it's own personality, it's own rate of consumption, it's own individual algae make up, coral types.........as you can tell I could go on and on....
No one statement, scenario will cover all situations all tanks, but we must make generalizations as a way to facilitate conversations, cover topics.

What I do with my tank, I do not encourage others to do. If you're speaking to a topic I would hope, but I am often disappointed, that the poster would have the goods to show for it. The colorful healthy corals they advise everyone else one on, the algae free tank.......

Of course the old "more than one way to skin a cat" comes into play. I have seen this hobby go from algae infested tanks, to ULNS and now we're coming full circle with dosing phosphates, who knew?

No we should not leave the primitive mentalities, old ways behind, how do you think we got so far. We should be able to consider and adopt new strategies when they seem applicable to our own situation.

 

[jolt]

In every case you stated, I believe you are arguing that short term anecdotal evidence does not necessarily provide a good indicator of long term effects. And for each example there is probably statistical long term scientific evidence to contradict the short term observationof "no observed negative effect." The complication is this: for a hobbyist its really hard to create a controlled experimental environment with all the rigor in data collection, data analysis, and peer review that is required. So we rely on a mass common wisdom, often with the most authoritative and assertive voice becoming accepted as an authority. Yes? What do you propose to do to change that then?

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Generalizations are one thing Tahoe, but I'm guessing you've never been the target of slander when approaching a discussion with a skeptical viewpoint..
I do love your dosing phosphate example. I recall being called a 'lunatic' in the early days of discussing carbon dosing and how it works. (it doesn't work was the general viewpoint at the time)

Jolt, just because 1000 voices say 1 thing does not make it wisdom, it's just something 1000 voices are saying.
And yes, I don't have an answer, but if we accept 'I've not seen any negative effects' we negate looking into it further let alone rehashing possible outcomes.

And though many things are not at all quantifiable in our tanks easily for the common Joe-Schmoe, we can learn from other interactions in nature and create mini-experiments. I'm still a huge advocate of not using Magic Erasers in the tank. Why? Because I researched, found averages for force of the human hand between pinky and thumb, compared these to the foam structural integrities, looked at the general outcomes of micro-particulate plastics in marine environments, looked into the recorded biological interactions, and came to the conclusion there's more evidence against it's use than people saying "I've seen no negative effect". Again, why? Because the effects would not be visible unless they dissect everything that dies, put it under a microscope, and continue down a road of actual analysis. And on top of all of that, I ignored for a balanced viewpoint the fact those stupid scrubbers can't even hold their integrity when I scrub a countertop as compared to a rougher patch of coralline algae. But what happens? See the experience above discussing carbon dosing. (carbon dosing doesn't work at all because the bacteria are terrestrial and not aquatic! -that was the number one argument against it iirc, funny now isn't it.. )

 

[Tahoe61]

Generalizations are one thing Tahoe, but I'm guessing you've never been the target of slander when approaching a discussion with a skeptical viewpoint..

Oh I think you would be surprised. And I have been on the opposite end, just ask Brandon and his soft cycle and peroxide dosing. Unless you show me the money I am not buying in.
When everyone wanted to cut up anemones I was horrified and I expressed as much, yep I was wrong, you can indeed chop up certain anemone types no biggie. The topic just needed time and clarification.
Dose Vodka are you kidding me? Dose Milk? Dose Phosphates?


Again though if a poster is exposing certain husbandry aspects of the hobby and can not show me a tank with the result, well then yeah no.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I recall a post about some guy in Asia dosing milk and honey...
One of the best responses was, "What do you think was said to the very first human who suggested drinking cow's milk?"
LOL

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I bring this up because I personally believe only we can form the hobby, so we should leave behind the primitive mentalities like the old methods.

Did you have any specific "old" methods in mind?

 

[Tahoe61]

I recall a post about some guy in Asia dosing milk and honey...
One of the best responses was, "What do you think was said to the very first human who suggested drinking cow's milk?"
LOL

Exactly. But I want to see you drink it first, I want to see the cow and the any affects/effects.

Some topics and theories I held as standards have evolved. I am open to change but show me the results not threads prognosticating your thesis or theory with no tangible results, images, numbers......

 

[jolt]

Randy mentioned something like this in another thread I believe: When I was sitting in the midstream workshop at MACNA I could not help thinking what a wonderful resource to the hobby that cloud database could be. Especially if they supported additional data like tank size, salt type, dosing, ..., etc.

I had this fleeting vision of a database that could be anonymously mined similar to medical databases for research purposes. Establish correlations somehow. Probably never happen though.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Exactly. But I want to see you drink it first, I want to see the cow and the any affects/effects.

Perfect example too~ Do you think the first lactose intolerant person mentioned what REALLY happened after they drank milk, or did they say "yup, I'm fine!" lol

I am open to change but show me the results not threads prognosticating your thesis or theory with no tangible results, images, numbers
This is what I strive for. Since we can't in many cases do the experiments ourselves in our homes, in our tanks, tangible results of some relevance have to be provided alongside the observations.
Think of how many years doctor's drained someone of blood to near-death to rid them of pneumonia or other similar ailments.. lol..
I'm sure they had a lot of "observations" too. But they were the doctor, so who could argue with them!

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Did you have any specific "old" methods in mind?

In hindsight they all have their place in their methodologies, but to progress and improve, you don't hold onto older methods fully.
Probably just should have left it at 'mentalities'...

 

[bct15]

Scientific research is the analysis of a set of data, the larger the range of the datasets the larger the scope if the research.

A forum such as this is the largest collection of data anybody can come by. A scientific research article can not test as many variables as presented on forums, therefor analyzing the reporting a of thousands of hobbyists is more effective than a research paper focussed on one small sample of controlled variables.

Secondly, in science a theory is an explanation of nature that can be explained through observation and the results repeated. Many old school methods, like using a protein skimmer, maintaining big three, and good flow are basically well proven theories. The success of following these practices is well documented and highly repeated throughout many sources.

If an old method delivers repeatable results that are well documented, what is the reason for changing it.

 

[jolt]

A forum such as this is the largest collection of data anybody can come by. A scientific research article can not test as many variables as presented on forums.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem in rigorous design of experiments is controlling most variables so you can discern the effects of varying one.

 

[Reef_Hobbyist]

Old methods are just new ideas which survived the test of time. We are making new "old" methods all the time.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I have not seen any negative effects.
.

IMO, that sort of info has great utility, but also great risks if no one in the conversation knows the limitations of how that result might or might not be properly extrapolated to other situations.

A perfect example that often gets that sort of post is tap water.

Tap water can be perfectly fine for one reef and totally disastrous for his next door neighbor with the same reef setup. The reason is that one of the problems in tap water (copper) comes largely from your own pipes. If you don't know that, you might think the first statement is enough by itself to guide his neighbor. Even 1000 statement to that effect are not enough.

Some one must combine both anecdotal info with a complete (or complete enough) understanding of the issue to assess how to use it.

 

[Paul B]

I bring this up because I personally believe only we can form the hobby, so we should leave behind the primitive mentalities like the old methods.

OH NO. So you mean I have to take out my undergravel filter? Dam, no wonder my 24 year old clowns keep spawning in their 44 year old tank, they are extremely Mad at me. :mad:

 

[brandon429]

I've been on plenty receiving ends and had asked for each one lol

its my opinion all our bantering drives the hobby fast and marine aquarium science faster than without us collectively.

retailers didn't use the word pico reef, until we did...yay for small monikers for ex.

we are posing so many anecdotes to be proven/disproven that if left up to only researchers it wouldn't evolve as fast.

There's gold in them thar web posts but one has to sift, put your ideas out for the staunchest challenges and be tough/dynamic enough to constantly rebound, even if perhaps just in one's own mind


so you can post again and make small breakthroughs among the beatings lol all in fun
heh

I work in high pressure sales environment and web arguing hones me, my tank and my provision acquisition ability. every beating taken or given makes yours and my tank stronger, more adaptive, and the price to pay is some really exhaustive threads along the way imo
'beating' is jestingly referring to hard disagreement Web posts typically about nerd things.

Things that matter to us, and are quizzical or laughable to lay types

R2R simply allows freedom with respect such that strongly digressing threads are allowed to unfold, self manage typically, and make for fun reading cuz you all are at work now anyway and are seeking these very challenges so you can be paid for having done so

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Scientific research is the analysis of a set of data, the larger the range of the datasets the larger the scope if the research.

A forum such as this is the largest collection of data anybody can come by. A scientific research article can not test as many variables as presented on forums, therefor analyzing the reporting a of thousands of hobbyists is more effective than a research paper focussed on one small sample of controlled variables.

Secondly, in science a theory is an explanation of nature that can be explained through observation and the results repeated. Many old school methods, like using a protein skimmer, maintaining big three, and good flow are basically well proven theories. The success of following these practices is well documented and highly repeated throughout many sources.

If an old method delivers repeatable results that are well documented, what is the reason for changing it.

I'm sorry, but I just get a picture of someone saying, "facebook is smarter than all of us!" lol
Just because you have a huge collection of independent viewpoints, and some happen to be the same, does not mean there is any scientific relevance involved.
I like your thought on this, but the older I get, the more I see people speak without thinking, thus it brings me back to what science is, an explanation fully supported by facts and repeatable experiments that have grounds rooted in physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Observations are not even a hypothesis......yet! But it's not a given that an observation WILL be a hypothesis.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

OH NO. So you mean I have to take out my undergravel filter? Dam, no wonder my 24 year old clowns keep spawning in their 44 year old tank, they are extremely Mad at me. :mad:

Don't worry Paul, I thought of you right away. hehe

 

[bct15]

I'm sorry, but I just get a picture of someone saying, "facebook is smarter than all of us!" lol
Just because you have a huge collection of independent viewpoints, and some happen to be the same, does not mean there is any scientific relevance involved.
I like your thought on this, but the older I get, the more I see people speak without thinking, thus it brings me back to what science is, an explanation fully supported by facts and repeatable experiments that have grounds rooted in physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Observations are not even a hypothesis......yet! But it's not a given that an observation WILL be a hypothesis.

I'm not talking about view points, I'm talking about data. It's their, just nobody to sort it.

We have picture logs of people's tanks, with various conditions logged. Using all sorts of equipment. People trying different things and logging their results (basically conducting experiments). It's all over the forums. Anecdotal evidence logged on the internet is the largest collection of experimental data available to mankind. Google has figured this out and used it for marketing, but the concept can be extended to anything.

Again, data is data, regardless of where it comes from. Interpreting the data is a different story.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If you have a 2000 people claiming something works, and 3 people claiming it doesn't...then it is safe to assume the product works. Like reviews on a product on amazon. Then the only reason to investigate an alternative is either cost or efficiency.

If you have 2000 people claiming something works, and 500 claiming it doesn't...then the product viability can come into question. You'll never see scientific papers on anything reefing hobby simply because the funding isn't there.