Anecdotal Evidence
Ron Shimek
The basic question is:
Why do so many reef-keepers accept anecdotal evidence and at the same time reject evidence determined by the scientific method?
I suspect this is because many of those hobbyists significantly misunderstand
- the scientific method,
- scientifically determined evidence, and
- the utility of the scientific literature
I basically think this is a fundamental misunderstanding based on inadequate training or ediucation in the scientific method and in some cases, perhaps even a fear of the method.
Please note, this statement basically implies an ignorance of the process, not a lack of intelligence. There is nothing wrong with ignorance that can't be cured by learning, so perhaps we could begin.
Eric Borneman
I wish the dialogue would begin already!!!!!....however
I like the reasons given and think they are true to some degree.
I also have an amusing anecdote to relate and another suggestion. I recently gave a talk that, as part of the lecture, encompassed some data regarding trends in global reef communties as a result of increased sea surface temperatures and trends in global climatological data that appear to be significantly impacting coral reefs. While attempting to avoid using the catch phrase "global warming," it was more or less what I was referring to. The data were mainly a brief summary of Buddemeir's recent review presentation and studies. A gentleman from that club and I later exchanged several emails where he questioned the validity of the data. I appreciated his skepticism, and could relate. Many of the points he raised were not very good ones, although the crux of his argument had merit; that being the conflictory nature of scientific work spanning several decades. In an attempt to valdiate his points, he did some research and wound up sending me some supportive articles from lay science magazines, most of which were twenty years old. Needless to say, and despite his applaud-able efforts, I did not change my view, nor I am at all convinced of his position as refuting that of Buddemeir. Still, it did illustrate an important point.
The masses of people read about scientific study through newspapers, magazines, and perhaps the "more scientific" publications like National Geographic, Discover, and maybe even Science. The news, in particular, has a very nasty habit of continually reporting sensationalist material, often highly skewed in accuracy, and over time exceedingly conflictory. We have gotten very used to public reports that something is very good or bad, only to have it completely refuted some time later. It must appear that science is not very competent; that for every group of scientists saying one thing, there is another group saying another. While this is true in many cases, the depth of material presented does not allow for discrimination and analysis. It has become very easy to simply say "no one knows for sure yet," or "its all subject to interpretation."
This, I think, holds especially true for aquaria as there is no real or significant scientific basis for closed systems and because they have always been so far from nature, that it is easy to say "What holds true in the ocean may not hold true for tanks because they are so different." True enough, even though basic scientific priniciples may often hold great validity. Furthermore, the anecdote and mythinformation spanning decades in this hobby is so pervasive that it is like retracing the history of the hobby to separate fact from fiction. The rate of change and improvement is similarly rapid, and mirrors the seemingly antithetic statements of the media regarding scientific findings. In other words, live sand was bad, and now its good. Bristle worms were bad, and now they are good. Acropora can't be kept, and now it can. Algae scrubbers are bad and now they may be good. ad nauseum. Easy to chalk it up to "no one really knows the truth."
Anyway, thats my sentiments....comments?
Michelle Jahn
Personally, I think you are both giving the average reef keeper far too much credit. :-) I told Rob last summer that I felt most reef keepers wanted some one to say "do this and your tank will look like the tank in the store/picture/etc." They don't want to say I made the decision to do this and it was wrong. They want to say so-and so told me to do XX and he was wrong.
Reading scientific data and then determining how that will effect/affect your tank is harder than going to the LFS and having a guy say "Do it this way." And listening to the guy at the LFS takes all the blame off of you. You didn't make the mistake, the guy at the LFS was wrong ! How many people ask you - after you pass on data, how you did your tank? How many do you think base their decision on the data presented verses how you did your tank??? Wouldn't the latter be anecdotal? Although based on fact, it is your interpretation - based on your system requirements, yet this is what they want. Then it's "That Boreman guys fault for telling me skimmerless was great", or "That Shemeck guys fault my sandbed didn't work." (misspells intentional)
Anyway, that's my .02
Eric Borneman
I agree with you. I think you have very much described the average reefkeeper, and your statements mirror my thoughts on the matter, too.
I was referring to those her, there and on other lists who are clearly getting information from sources above and beyond those you mention, and whose relative level of knowledge is beyond the masses....
I hate to interpret here, but I think that is whom Ron is referring to, as well, rather than the hobby at large; folks who just go to the fishstore on Saturday to buy a new fish to replace the one that died the week before and get the store to test their water before being sold a bottle of Nitrogen removing wands and some Phosphorus-X liquid concentrate.
Blame pointing is another great example. My goodness after so many years of making psots and helping aquarists, this is one of the most predictable aspects In fact, highly predicatble nature of human bhavior, particular Western Society. Not to go off on a sociology rant here, but a long time ago, I read a quote by the CEO of Sony (or another large Japanese corportation)... He was asked why the Japanese continued to excel and how they could produce such high quality products and why Amercians could not seem to do the same (remember, this was quite some time ago when electronics and cars were less known for being disposable and with planned obsolescence)
He remarked something to the effect " Americans make a mistake, and they find the responsible party. They spent great effort and time to explain why there was a problem, and then they spend a great amount of time pinpointing who's responsibility it was to assess and correct the problem. Japanese do not care who is to blame. They identify the problem and everyone works to fix it."
It is never our own fault, is it?