When did hearsay become proven science??

[dgasmd]

Aaaaahhhhhhhhh, I see some of you took a bite as I thought you would. I still see that a lot of the answers and reasoning you are using are common logical deduction, but it was exactly my point that there is no substantial scientific evidence to back it up.

I am yet to see or heard of the first scientific analysis of skimmate. I do agree that that dark, muddy, and quite stinky substance taken out of the water can't possibly be good for anything, but that is based on the fact that I don't like dark, muddy, and stinky substances and not on research showing that such things are composed of XYZ and that they are detrimental to corals. How are they detrimental? Someone took corals ABC and exposed one to the skimmate in the water, one to nothing, and one to different degrees/amounts of skimmate and showed that over X period of time growth was stunted, there was less zoxanthele production, that they metabolism was affected, etc. See what I am getting at here? Until then it remains to be hearsay.

Same goes for the lighting. All the arguments some of you have made are quite possibly true. They sound good to me also, but there is nothing that has shown convincibly those arguments. I may be wrong and I would love to read something that proves me wrong. It is not a spitting contest, but I also would like to learn if someone shows me differently. I am not that smart afterall.

I couldn't agree more with the person that said all we can agree on is that they need water and salt :lol: :lol:

Mike:

You have some valid arguments, but my point was not to prove or disprove theories. Rather, it was to bring out the question of: Is what I hear as true actually true or just someone's answer he heard more than once and took it as being true? I guess I made you type a lot anyway :lol: :lol:

 

[mojoreef]

You have some valid arguments, but my point was not to prove or disprove theories. Rather, it was to bring out the question of: Is what I hear as true actually true or just someone's answer he heard more than once and took it as being true? I guess I made you type a lot anyway

I hear ya Alberto, and thats why I suggested doing this thread, and yes you did make me go crossed eyed for a bit thier. Well lets get to it, what did you want to put some back up behind first???

One statement was made here where it said thier are many ways to skin a cat. I have never liked that one , Biology is biology and thier is only one way to do that. What we do is basically set up a series of checks and balances to try to recreate natural biology. For every check we put in place thier is an opposite balance that occurs. Lighting can be a good example. Say person a has week lighting, this would be a check put in play, in order to meet the critters biological demand (as in its used to getting 90% of its food from light) the person is going to have to balance it by providing the other forms of getting that coral food. Ex: little more nutrients in the water, little more food available in the water column. So now its balanced, But in providing the balance another check was put into play. The nutrients and food now used by the coral are now out of balance or will skew the enviroment to algae. So another balance must once again be put in play.

Anyway that can go for a long time, but hopefully the point gets across



Mike

 

[The R/C Man]

Everything you read on this board is "hearsay" if you don't have first hand knowledge by doing the testing yourself. Lets go farther into it. What about the people who are supposed to be gurus on these subjects. How do we know that their data and testing is valid. What makes them gurus? Hearsay right? We assume they know what they are talking about because everyone else says they do.

I always try to get to most replies to a question from the biggest audience I can. Then I go do some research on the subject. This is from people who write books and articles on the subject in question. (self proclaimed experts?) I compile all the info and then add my own experiences into the mix. The answer would have to be what makes sense to me. People tend to believe things that are written in black and white never questioning its validity. I am presently writing a book... Does that make me an expert? It just means that I might be more knowledgable on that particular subject than someone else.

I guess what it all boils down to is people need to take advice from others more knowledgable than themselves. If they question something test it. If it makes sense and others are prospering from it then do it. You learn from others successes as well as their failures. Make the hobby better. Get involved... Take a biology class. Go buy a microscope, and do some testing.....

 

[dgasmd]

I guess what it all boils down to is people need to take advice from others more knowledgable than themselves. If they question something test it. If it makes sense and others are prospering from it then do it. You learn from others successes as well as their failures. Make the hobby better. Get involved... Take a biology class. Go buy a microscope, and do some testing.....

Greg:

I agree with most of what you said. However, getting answers solely from large audiences does not give correct answers. Ask 5,000 aborigines in the jungle of africa about the moon and its relationship to the earth and you will not get exactly correct answers. But you do make a great point that is to look further, test yourself and see if the results are reproducible, and search deeper. I am not trying to nip pick as I know what you meant by it.

Mike:

Lets make a couple of assumptions here. First, lets narrow it down to SPS corals only so we are all in the same page. And by the way, I am not biased to these corals as you know :lol: :lol: Lets take lighting for example. Lets start with the premise that Sanjay's testing is 100% accurate even thought it is only one result and has not been tried by anyone else. Good science has to be tested and reproducible Lets also start by saying that we agree that light intensity drops off significantly once it enters water. There is plenty of scientific documentation of the light intensity perceived at different depth in the ocean. From that you can see the intensity of a 175 watt MH 8-10" from the surface is hardly anything measurable 24" below the water. If you look at the sunlight intensity at 100' (2-3+ times as deep as where most of our SPS corals come from), then you can see some correlation. However, there is hardly a single coral we collect and propagate that come from those water depths. So, the question is again, how can they become colorful (we know what pigmentation is a result of) and grow well under such "poor lighting" in our tanks?

OK, let the mental hernia develop :lol:

 

[jlehigh]

I would like to add one thought: How interesting of a hobby would this be if every thing we did and strived to do was based on scientific facts.. I would think such a hobby would limit the creativity and the social interaction which I like.

I agree filtering through good advice and bad is not easy, and conflicting information can be difficult to reconcile, BUT I like the fact that this hobby can keep my overactive brain in constant motion.. If it didn't I would be on to something that did.

 

[mojoreef]

Lets start with the premise that Sanjay's testing is 100% accurate even thought it is only one result and has not been tried by anyone else. Good science has to be tested and reproducible

Sure it does, but the science was in the egineering of the light meters and scopes he used. As for his study it just taking readings off said machines, so pretty easy to go along with.

So, the question is again, how can they become colorful (we know what pigmentation is a result of) and grow well under such "poor lighting" in our tanks?

Gotcha. It take merely a flash of bright light (like a glimmer line in your tank) to excite a zoox and start a photosynthetic cycle, from thier the P cycle can run for hours on normal lighting (vho type). Most of the coral being grown for reforestation is done this way. A flash of light and then vho for two hours, coral grows no problem. Also thier are many differnt varities of zoox, some dont need much for excitation some need more. You can have a SPS, lets say a poccilipora now it can grow as deep as a 100 feet or as shollow as 5 feet, they adapt, they swap out zoox and so on. So in the case you are giving as an example, if a person has a SPS under low lighting it means that the coral is not going to meet its energy budget through zoox, it will need to capture and/or absorb more nutrients to help meet the criteria. Now that is only going to work with certain sps. It might work on all for a period of time, but its eventually going to be a loosing battle.

Not sure if that answered the question??

On the subject of gurus or so called experts one should never take thier word. Ask for references or proof. If the so called guru or expert is one they should have no problem sharing references.


Mike

 

[wrightme43]

I like the fact that this hobby can keep my overactive brain in constant motion.. If it didn't I would be on to something that did.

I agree totally. I really liked that statement. Steve

 

[plack]

In the ocean there are unhealthy reefs that are bleaching out and dying so we are trying to follow what is best for the coral no one knows 100 percent what that is but over time through observation people have seen trends some based on science some not. To go off the subject and try an analogy (I said try, be nice ) Attention Deficit Disorder (oh I can hear some disagreement already) is typically diagnosed by behavior not by chemical analysis and this is widely accepted by members of the medical community (trained in science) but this is somewhat subjective and is not always right but is always done for the patients best interest likewise we may observe certain behaviors and do what is right for the corals not based on science at times but considering the bad conditions of various reefs in the ocean and the pollution and die off and many predators I would say many reefers are taking better care of there little corner of the ocean than the specimens would do in the wild and also about corals being stiffer in tanks I don't know but I imagine it has to do with the coral adapting to captive life like the reefs in the ocean are adapting to changes in there environment there thats my small bone

 

[nyfireman3097]

good thread
Nick

 

[middletonmark]

On the subject of gurus or so called experts one should never take thier word. Ask for references or proof. If the so called guru or expert is one they should have no problem sharing references.

This is the most problematic problem, IMO. All these experts - and a very very few of them I've ever seen a tank from. Claims about how to care for my tank - yet you can tell me what substrate, that I don't feed enough, etc etc etc ... but the proof is in the pudding.

I've never seen a pic of Dr. Ron's tank, Eric B's tank, or many other people who try to tell me how to keep my reef. I don't believe in judging a reefer off of a single picture, or even a couple ... but it rings to me like some other `additive systems' - lots of people telling me how it is, very few examples of long-term success that I can see in pics demonstrated.

And further investigation often isn't terribly hopeful - a little digging on some folks [Ron comes to mind] and you realize that they've had tank problems/crashes from time to time.

Then again, there's folks like Boomer who might not keep a tank now, but doesn't talk about stuff that requires a tank to know it. Chemistry is chemistry, whether or not you have a tank ... but aquaria coral coloration, without a tank, is mighty weak IMO.

Judging who to read what from ... that's part of the fun, as I've found some great thoughts coming out of people I never expected. And some dumb ones coming out of people I had thought knew a lot. Thankfully, so many of us have a `I'm learning, always' attitude so that you always are a little skeptical.

Great topic Alberto

 

[Boomer]

Well Mark, at least you are not confused to which niche I'm in I agree. And if I started one up again you can bet on it I would be drilling you and Mojo to death :lol:

Mike and Mojo

but aquaria coral coloration, without a tank, is mighty weak IMO

Gotcha.......

Based on what I know Mike I would "assume" that is correct and yes Mark kinda'

Even Veron, in his book Corals in Space and Time (IIRC), mentions corals in reef tanks just don't grow the same as in the wild, to the point where in time they may be impossible to ID.

R/C

Sorry bud but your posts sound like you are the self proclaimed expert and guru. By the way I have never been to the Indo-Pacific, so it must be hearsay that it is there

If everything on this board is hearsay, then why are you here ? "You" can't test everything and neither can anyone else. That is why this hobby has so many unknowns, to include hearsay, myths and things some people just can't or don't understand. I always get a charge out of many "IMHO". As if I or some one else is suppose to honor them, because it is their opinion. Many IMHO are just BS

 

[mojoreef]

Yea but honestly you cant with a straight face tell me that you dont love the BS!! If it wasnt for that thier would be nothing to wade though, rofl. that is IMHO of coarse.


Mike

 

[NaH2O]

If it were only as easy as this:

 

[MikeS]

That's great Nikki....I can't wait to use that .gif...hilarious... :lol:

Ok...I'm a "IMHO" kind of guy when I post....and yeah, I'm sure I've thrown some BS out there from time to time (hopefully nothing too drastic or bad enough to make me look stupid... ) BUT....I admit when I'm wrong (usually) and I try to learn from others. On the latter point, I have found that one of the more difficult parts of learning from others...who do ya trust and why? I guess you have to have a bit of *Faith*. Like Boomer said...this hobby is full of unknowns...it would be nice to have a giant stack of good scientific studies on every aspect of captive reefkeeping sitting in front of us, but we don't. So we have to "fill in the gaps" so to speak. I guess that's where faith comes in. So....."IMHO" , until good scientific proof comes along to upset the hearsay I tend to take as good information, I guess I'm stuck with it...

MikeS

 

[Scooterman]

I know I never BS anyone!

 

[Boomer]

you cant with a straight face

No I can't and my Visa is maxed out on hip boots.

If it were only as easy as this:

You forgot about this Nikki


Degrees

BS = Bull Sh_t

MS = Master of Bull Sh_t

PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper

I admit when I'm wrong (usually) and I try to learn from others

Me too and I respect those people. It is those that don't or worse yet, those that have a reputation they seem to think they need to defend, so put a spin on it to try and make themselves look right or talk around the question. If that doesn't work then comes the name calling or slamming, some how that makes them think they are correct.

 

[mojoreef]

Mike I will say IMHO also, I do it when I am in a topis where I am not sure and/or thier is no hard data. I dont think its a bad habbit, actually it is honest. Thier are alot of things where you just cant bring science into the picture to. Trying to bring complex ecological webs and systems into a closed system can be impossible. I think this is one of the big problems in the hobby, some folks try to bring exactly what happens in the wild and recreate it in thier tank, theirs just not enough scale or recruitement to make that happen.
Being wrong is all part of being experenced. I can say that I have a great amount of experence in this hobby and it comes from making more mistakes then anyone else LOL

Mike

 

[middletonmark]

Well Mark, at least you are not confused to which niche I'm in I agree. And if I started one up again you can bet on it I would be drilling you and Mojo to death :lol:

Ah, the reason I IMO. Sometimes people mistake me for someone with far more experience than I do. A million posts on RC does not make a wise man, or huge posts on any board. Just one who talks a lot, maybe rambles too

But good lord, don't think I actually know something, other than what I think is working right now, in my tank. That might end up crashing it.

I should almost keep that last line as my sig :lol:

 

[Alice]

Great thread!

There are never going to be absolute hard science answers for all of the aspects in our hobby - way too many variables. Not to mention that many "pure" scientists could give a hoot what goes on in our glass boxes. Much of the advancement and study in this hobby has come from the trial-and-error of well-educated hobbyists who don't have the benefit of expensive testing equipment.

That's IMHO.

 

[wrightme43]

Here is my simple test. If it makes sense and I think it is worth trying, I do. If I dont think it makes sense I disregard it untill I learn more. I belive we were gifted with brains for a reason. I use IMHO too. It very simply to me means this is what I think, if you wanna use go for it, if not that is your choice as well. With it I am trying to say I am not a authority, this is only what I think is the right thing to do. Hell I dont even have a high school diploma, my opinion had better be humble. LOL Steve