"I have not seen any negative effects."

[Kungpaoshizi]

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.

I guess I'm just expecting something other than anecdotal evidence. Why?
Because 2 people walk into a bar, 1 says the music is great, 1 says it's not.

For 2000 people who says it works vs 3 that's another story, but it still doesn't take into account the dozens of other reasons something could be happening in a tank that the people don't realize.
Again, what you suggest is a great idea, a scraping algorithm for finding info from reef forums, would be fabulous.
But it's only as good as the data collected and it doesn't make it fact! (again I'm sure there was 2000 people in history that said "asbestos is the greatest thing eva!" and 3 people said "uhh no")

I'm not saying there IS a better way, but to be more cautious and don't accept "I've seen no negative effects" in every case. I see more and more people passing off the buck by saying that. Even attributing a death of a fish to "a random death" is probably 90% false because most of the creatures we house don't live anywhere near as long as they do in nature. That's the nature of housing in captivity. (lawl, the nature of it... hehe)

By those standards if you scan the net as a whole and judge things from voiced anecdotal evidence, you'll probably find that religion is right, global warming is false, and the best form of government is communism! lol

 

[bct15]

I think you're confusion anecdotal evidence with opinions.

Anecdotal evidence is something like a group of people stating "I had x problem. After using product y the problem went away." That is evidence to support a claim, and is the same thing as an experimental result. The result is repeatable.

An opinion is stating something like "I choose x brand of product because I THINK the blue bottle makes it work better". This is not a repeatable claim, and is simply somebody's opinion.

Also, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. Correlation does not equal causation. I can say something like, in the past month more women have been wearing red while in the same time x stock prices have steadily increased. Both values demonstrate a similar trend but are unrelated. Further expounding, if 2000 people claim a product x works and 3 people claim it didn't because Y problem occurred at the start of using product x...the 3 people with negative reviews are probably noticing a correlation that is not the causation. Especially if a large portion of the 2000 use the product in identical conditions as the 3 who didn't successfully use it. In statistics, those 3 people are called an outlier.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I guess I'm just expecting something other than anecdotal evidence. Why?
Because 2 people walk into a bar, 1 says the music is great, 1 says it's not.

That's why I've started various Reef Chemistry forums. The chemistry science behind many of the things we do is not subject to opinion, but before I started them, such issues were often subject to majority rules (or loudest rules) as a way to decide stuff.

 

[brandon429]

100% for sure there needs to be a force that continually tests claims and drives towards pure science, its literally vital or we're just wallowing around. To be honest Randy the bar is lower where you are not doing battle.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I think you're confusion anecdotal evidence with opinions.

Anecdotal evidence is something like a group of people stating "I had x problem. After using product y the problem went away." That is evidence to support a claim, and is the same thing as an experimental result. The result is repeatable.

An opinion is stating something like "I choose x brand of product because I THINK the blue bottle makes it work better". This is not a repeatable claim, and is simply somebody's opinion.

Also, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. Correlation does not equal causation. I can say something like, in the past month more women have been wearing red while in the same time x stock prices have steadily increased. Both values demonstrate a similar trend but are unrelated. Further expounding, if 2000 people claim a product x works and 3 people claim it didn't because Y problem occurred at the start of using product x...the 3 people with negative reviews are probably noticing a correlation that is not the causation. Especially if a large portion of the 2000 use the product in identical conditions as the 3 who didn't successfully use it. In statistics, those 3 people are called an outlier.

And herein is the reason for my post. According to the dictionary, I would like to think it's the one-stop reference for interpretation of words:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. In cases where small numbers of anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

You bring up again the 2000 vs 3 scenario. That was a valid scenario in the support of asbestos, and it was wrong for many, many years.

 

[Paul B]

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

OH, Thank God. I already had most of the water out and half of the rocks on my floor.

 

[Paul B]

That's why I've started various Reef Chemistry forums. The chemistry science behind many of the things we do is not subject to opinion, but before I started them, such issues were often subject to majority rules (or loudest rules) as a way to decide stuff.

Although the science behind the chemistry is not subject to opinion, the practical aspects of the chemistry behind the science, or how we choose to interpret the results of the chemistry and how they affect marine inhabitants is subject to opinion. My opinion anyway. (I don't know how other people's opinions get opinionated) But sometimes I am to loud. Example: I feel nitrates don't contribute to growing algae. You, and many people can point to excess nutrients growing algae. I can point to excess nutrients doing nothing. It's like dancing. OK, no it's not. Never mind.

 

[bct15]

And herein is the reason for my post. According to the dictionary, I would like to think it's the one-stop reference for interpretation of words:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. In cases where small numbers of anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

You bring up again the 2000 vs 3 scenario. That was a valid scenario in the support of asbestos, and it was wrong for many, many years.

I think what you and I view as evidence is different (maybe it's my ability to interpret and sift through info and BS). You seem to be talking about what I call opinions. What I view as evidence is repeatable results. For example: fluke tabs killing GSP and Anthelia but not SPS, or tech m killing bryopsis. Neither are explained through scientific research, but both offer up hundreds of accounts of repeatable results.

Can you give some examples of what you think needs to be changed in the hobby, or what you view as bad anecdotal evidence.

 

[brandon429]

tech m and bryopsis is among the highest ranked ones ever. among em all. a solid 9 ish yrs and running now

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Although the science behind the chemistry is not subject to opinion, the practical aspects of the chemistry behind the science, or how we choose to interpret the results of the chemistry and how they affect marine inhabitants is subject to opinion. My opinion anyway. (I don't know how other people's opinions get opinionated) But sometimes I am to loud. Example: I feel nitrates don't contribute to growing algae. You, and many people can point to excess nutrients growing algae. I can point to excess nutrients doing nothing. It's like dancing. OK, no it's not. Never mind.

That's biology, not chemistry.

Chemistry is:

"I'm not adding anything and calcium and alkalinity are stable, but magnesium declined 200 ppm in the past week."

And the chemistry response:

"No, it didn't. "

 

[Paul B]

That's biology, not chemistry.

Chemistry is:

"I'm not adding anything and calcium and alkalinity are stable, but magnesium declined 200 ppm in the past week."

And the chemistry response:

"No, it didn't. "

See Randy, that's why you have more degrees than a thermometer, and I am just a lug nut with an old tank. A very healthy old tank I may add.

 

[JSeward]

I'm not saying there IS a better way, but to be more cautious and don't accept "I've seen no negative effects" in every case. I see more and more people passing off the buck by saying that. Even attributing a death of a fish to "a random death" is probably 90% false because most of the creatures we house don't live anywhere near as long as they do in nature. That's the nature of housing in captivity. (lawl, the nature of it... hehe)

I think it's silly to expect the average hobbyist to present hard data every time they talk about their tank. Other than a handful of tests, observation is the only way to determine what works and what doesn't for a majority of people. If a fish dies and there aren't any observable signs of illness or distress, how many people have the means to dig deeper into the cause of death? If someone starts dosing a new supplement and it looks to have a positive impact on their live stock, a majority of people are simply going to state that "the tank is looking better". Not document the progress with daily pictures and sending monthly water samples to a lab for 6 months to back up why things are looking good. It's up to you, the reader, to understand that what is being said is anecdotal and their are probably parts missing from the story.

The real problem is not people stating that things are going well, it's not sharing when things go bad. The bad stories serve as a warning to others and give us a reason to collect data. I bet for every "I have not seen any negative effects" comment there is a person that has had problems, but didn't share it. Someone starts a thread about something bad that happened and there are always posts from people like "I'm having that same problem" or "That happened to me last year". You see it all the time. Those people could have prevented someone else from making the same mistake.

 

[Paul B]

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..
.. )

Wow, you should try using an undergravel filter if you want to see some skeptical viewpoints and forget about it if you mention immunity.

 

[ReeferJohn408]

All of these came from an OLD methods / Ideas that we methodize as we progress.

 

[1fishjones]

Nice! Am O supposed to pick up Ash today?

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I think it's silly to expect the average hobbyist to present hard data every time they talk about their tank. Other than a handful of tests, observation is the only way to determine what works and what doesn't for a majority of people. If a fish dies and there aren't any observable signs of illness or distress, how many people have the means to dig deeper into the cause of death?

Ahh but that separates the scientific observations from child-like observations.
There's more to this world on many levels, just because people don't seek it out because it's difficult or complex doesn't make their judgements any more sound. (that's my problem with the saying)

I thought of it the other day, kinda like this.
A guy doesn't go out much, he doesn't watch the news or read the newspaper, he has no social life, pretty much keeps to himself. He still thinks plastic is the most amazing thing ever, why? Because he's never seen any negative effects.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Wow, you should try using an undergravel filter if you want to see some skeptical viewpoints and forget about it if you mention immunity.

Paul, the rugf has been the one methodology that really stands out to me. It definitely has it's place in physics and chemistry for a makeshift marine environment. Of course you'll always have those who say "siphon the sand!" heh.. (but I do feel it is a notch above some of the newer methods)

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I think what you and I view as evidence is different (maybe it's my ability to interpret and sift through info and BS). You seem to be talking about what I call opinions. What I view as evidence is repeatable results. For example: fluke tabs killing GSP and Anthelia but not SPS, or tech m killing bryopsis. Neither are explained through scientific research, but both offer up hundreds of accounts of repeatable results.

Can you give some examples of what you think needs to be changed in the hobby, or what you view as bad anecdotal evidence.

Can't speak to the fluke tabs as I've never read anything on the subject.

But ya, ha, that's hilarious. Tech M didn't work for me. Only made my critters lethargic and killed my cleaner shrimp. I especially love the one main part of Tech M everyone relays, I'm guessing you'll say it's either copper, or a mystery ingredient that makes it work?

There's an example of what needs to change in the hobby. Yes, I'm completely aware of people suggesting it because it "worked" for them, but I follow the same instructions toned to an average of all of those 'anecdotal observations', heck even TechM makers created an instruction sheet followed with, "we don't suggest this, but......."
I search for days and days on a legitimate explanation for why it worked, I did find one plausible reasoning, perhaps you'll state it.

 

[Mike in CT]

Plastic is pretty amazing! [emoji1]

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Although the science behind the chemistry is not subject to opinion, the practical aspects of the chemistry behind the science, or how we choose to interpret the results of the chemistry and how they affect marine inhabitants is subject to opinion. My opinion anyway. (I don't know how other people's opinions get opinionated) But sometimes I am to loud. Example: I feel nitrates don't contribute to growing algae. You, and many people can point to excess nutrients growing algae. I can point to excess nutrients doing nothing. It's like dancing. OK, no it's not. Never mind.

Reminds me of this one:
(please excuse the link to another forum, I feel the thread is very worthwhile as an oddball on "acceptable" phosphate levels)

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2366953