Backwards thinking and myths

[Tom Barr]

I've been hassled more than a few times about questioning long held myths and doing some rather basic test to falsify hypothesis.

Invariably, these discussions tend to go after EI or me personally, and avoids the topic and answering the basic question: if X leads to algae, stunted plants,whatever........ then we should see in all cases this effect under good aquarium conditions.

If we test this hypothesis and we do not have these conditions, say algae blooms, or stunted plants, dead fish and what not.........then it cannot be the sole reason for the issue, we cannot say much more than about what we tested, but we can say it is not X.

This works well unless we cannot falsify X.
Then it remains inconclusive.

So why is this difficult for many to accept and understand on line?
In person, this logic is rather simple to show and demonstrate, there's none of this heehawing or flaming of eh questioning of the long held myth, folks tend to be far more open then. I see far more honest curiosity in person than I do on line/the web. Behaviorally, folks are much more likely to cling to the myths and try and support them, even after being falsified decades ago. Others will pull up some research paper, while interesting, it does not apply well to the aquarium conditions, ecology. If it does not also hold true in the aquarium observationally, it is going to be of little use.

I do realize folks need a reference to see before they will believe or dispute a myth. If you are having trouble with CO2, but believe PO4 is the reason for your woes, then nothign folks say about CO2 will convince you. But once they see it, then what? We can provide them quickly with some examples with pictures, video etc, but then they still do not accept or believe it.

I've asked some of them if they believe I and others are "all lying and it is some conspiracy". My question here is why do you think people are so resistant to honest curiosity and accepting of myths on the web vs in person? I know folks can hide behind the screen and the anonymously post without any social pressures, but why shut the brain down entirely?

Why be aggressive in support of a myth rather than questioning it with the same zeel??

 

[ubr0ke]

There are far more myths online then facts...Forums are filled with opinions. Local forums with old heads stuck in there ways spewing information that does not progress the hobby but confuse newbies is way to common..Way to much attention is given to high light but very little information is given for co2...I read post replies on my local forum and cringe...I used to step in and sometimes still do but repeating myself has became redundant. The barr report is one of the best sources for honest, and proven ways to grow plants. Isn't that what we all love to do. Unfortunately its human nature to stand for what we believe in and sometimes we are wrong. Its a pride thing. Online I think people can pull from a wide source of information to prove a point even if they have never actually did the research for themselves. Someone who has can find flaws in the information they provide but for most, everything they read is a fact especially if a fancy pic of a planted tank is posted beside the information. Others posting there opinions rather then facts just makes matters worse. In person I think many things come into play. A personal connection goes a long way. Trust is born. A face not just font on a screen would certainly be easier to follow. And for most being a follower is ok. In a perfect world everyone would test and experiment but were lazy. We want the rewards not the work. We want to know what to do not why. In due time the online people will come around. I live in Canada and e.i. is starting to catch on. The results speak for themselves. Just keep spreading the word whether it be online or in a more personal setting and thanks for spending your time and knowledge to help make a nice planted tank in the reach of anyone whose capable of listening.

 

[Cyclesafe]

Many people too readily accept authority purely on the basis of faith - a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence." They resent challenges to that acceptance, both because of their long-held investment in the belief and because they are, frankly, usually not sufficiently educated and / or knowledgeable to understand the dimensions of the challenge. So they hastily "resolve" the dissonance by pushing some endlessly repeated factoid or in extreme situations just make stuff up from whole cloth.

Nobody thinks that they themselves are stupid. But anyone else who doesn't parrot the same belief could be and probably is stupid. In person, the social graces force us to feign interest / understanding and to thus avoid conflict. But over the internet, with the world watching, it is far easier to flame.

 

[rw007]

There is enough noise on the internet to allow you to support your wildest assertions, whatever they may be.

 

[Jim Miller]

I think all of this is compounded by the desire to always amp the light first and ask questions later. Perhaps it is because it is easy and immediate to see brighter lights and hope that brighter must somehow be better than it is to conduct controlled experiments on other contributors. There seems to be a real resistance to lowering lights in general. I think sometimes folks just don't give themselves a chance to appreciate a dimmer tank before amping it again.

Once the lights are smokin' then things get out of control and again no patience to do proper testing with adequate time for plants to respond (too much first person shooter time) means try every crazy remedy one after another. When the "last thing tried" happens to correlate in time with an apparent change for the better then it is touted as the cure. Never mind that the plant or algae had no reasonable time to respond.

I wonder if T5 ballasts were uniformly dimmable would people take the time to test. Most seem reluctant to take out a bulb. Many (including me) seem to be unable or unwilling to suspend the light higher. No one wants to try a piece of window screen. I've discovered that my HO ballasted T5 fixture will actually drive NO bulbs properly so that will be something I'll be playing with.

Jim

 

[dutchy]

.....and because they are, frankly, usually not sufficiently educated and / or knowledgeable to understand the dimensions of the challenge.

I certainly believe this is one of the main factors. Some people simply don't understand. I can tell them the same over and over again. Another factor is stubbornness and plain arrogancy. Beginners in the hobby are much more open minded. Another problem is that anyone that's able to write can publish on the internet, true or false. Often this forces me to disprove this nonsense. Myths are hard to kill.

Then there's the people that are against EI because the claim it's dangerous for their fish, without producing specific figures that fish X which we keep in our tanks has problems with Y ppm of substance Z. This is even harder because it attacks EI at the base.

Others don't take the effort to help the topicstarter, but start to criticize me about my answer. This almost makes it personal but to disadvantage of the topicstarter, who ends up in doubt. Mostly I end this discussion with telling them to try the other answer first. Learning what doesn't work is helpful too. After some months they come back with the same problem, I repeat my answer, they try and find out that it works.

It's a hard job....

regards

 

[Jim Miller]

As far as supporting the topic starter (aka TB) I think many folks just don't have the years of experience to make their own comments more than supportive anecdotes. I keep trying to get folks to get their foot off the accelerator (lights) and get back on the track rather than continue scraping the walls in all four turns. Lights are narcotic. Patience necessary for testing is scarce. Everyone wants immediate results and often attribute coincidence with causation.

jim

 

[barbarossa4122]

Hi Tom,

The member that challenged you on TPT a few days ago with some "research article" about no3 levels over 20 ppm causing stunning did not return to pony up, did he.

 

[SuperColey1]

I think one of the main problems is the way of the net itself.

Articles are written and they remain on the net even when the author him/herself may have moved on from where they were when they wrote the article/post.

This can be seen easily by searching my username for example. Over the years as I have moved on my posts remain and therefore if someone is searching for information they come across something I typed years ago which may be along the 'old beliefs'.

Therefore they think I follow those rules. If they meet me in person or do a search on my username limiting it to 'past year' the picture is different.

So while the net is great for getting info on the chosen subject it's failing is that information that the searches pull up is not chronolgical in any way. Often the first links to come up on the search are a few years back where the up to date ones are way down. Purely because they have the more hits etc.

The Krib is one of those sites where it has good and bad but there are posts/articles on there dating back 10-15 years which are way off the mark. Of course there are more up to date articles/posts too but site owners need to update things where they can. Not offending the original author by removing them as most of those authors must surely also have moved on in understanding since they wrote their text.

You may say this is the same as litereature/books however to get that literature people have to get up from their seat, walk away from the screen and go look at books whereas the net is at their finger tips.

I would guess it will become more and more like this over time as the net expands rapidly so all we can do is push the message and educate. Once those newly educated people believe then its one more to preach the 'up to date' message.

Sad but true. Technology is not always the best thing

AC

 

[1077]

Laziness and instant gratification are all too common in my view. Many new hobbyist's aren't interested in the why or wherefore's of growing plant's or keeping fishes for that matter.
They want what they want ,now.They aren't interested in researching and making an informed desicion based on proponderance of easily available information, and loads of people posting on the internet are completely happy to regurgitate misinformation or all out false hoods with respect to nearly all aspects of the hobby.
When I began keeping fishes nearly forty years ago, I killed untold numbers out of ignorance and arrogance with respect to proper care, compatibility,diets,water parameter's,etc. I bought fishes that were pretty, or aggressive as the flavor of the week dictated. I was a collector/murderer of many species.It wasn't until I grew tired of replacing fishes that I began to research the species that interested me and their specific needs and or ability to thrive with other species within the enviornment I created.
I now keep fishes rather than simply collect/kill them.
Planted tank's eluded me for some years for I seemingly could do nothing but grow algae or kill plants. I then decided to research what methods produced the most consistent results and began pouring over threads on various plant forums, and ultimately found that much weeding out of useful info while ignoring those who could not/would not explain their methods or reasoning was needed.Eventually,, through hours, and hours, of research,, I began to see where I needed to train my efforts.Seems not many are willing to do this.
My biggest problem when facing lack of desired result's whether it be keeping fishes,or growing plant's, were those who quickly suggested three or four things to try at one time rather than suggesting trying one thing first,wait to see what the result is,and then trying another so as to be able to gauge the results and thus identify the effects of each on their own.
Not many put forth the effort to perform their research and plant's along with fishes,and perhaps billfolds are the ones that readily feel the effects.

 

[barbarossa4122]

Laziness and instant gratification are all too common in my view.

How right you are. After reading a lot about plants and fish I came to the conclusion that this site and the site's members offer the best honest info and advice. Arguments and challenges that include personal attacks are not seen here, at least I did not see any, so far.
Lol, did not want or dreamed of getting into this hobby until my wife came home with 4 goldfish in Sept. of 2009.

 

[1077]

Myths can more easily be dismissed when everyone, or all tanks use same source water in my opinion.Good aquarium conditions for one species of fish may not suit another.
I have seen those who post up pictures of say,, German blue Rams on nest of eggs in what is reported to be rock hard water and low 70's F. Temp
Does not prove anything to me, for I have had these fishes drop eggs in bag on the way home from store due to stress?
No,, show me some pictures of Rams caring for fry in said rock hard water and lower temps.
I could keep molly's in slightly saline conditions and 82 degree F which would be good aquarium conditions for this species, but many tetra's would expire within weeks,days.
What sold me on EI was the lack of negative effects on fishes which always come first in my book, across a wide range of water parameter's.
I suspect, though I'm not expierienced enough to affirm,, that some species of plant's will perform better under different parameter's much the way fishes do and I shall defer to your knowledge should this not be so.

 

[Ekrindul]

Hollow Earth hypothesis. There are people who believe this nonsense and claim people live within the earth; that gravity behaves much differently within the earth than it does for us surface dwellers; and that there is a sun at the center of the earth--all without the slightest scientific evidence to back up the concept. And despite the fact that proven physical laws easily demonstrate the idea is completely idiotic.

Maybe it's not all ego or ignorance. Maybe we are being too forgiving in some instances. Some people want to believe in crazy concepts. Going against the grain has appeal for some people, even when it's completely obvious they are wrong.

 

[1077]

Hollow Earth hypothesis. There are people who believe this nonsense and claim people live within the earth; that gravity behaves much differently within the earth than it does for us surface dwellers; and that there is a sun at the center of the earth--all without the slightest scientific evidence to back up the concept. And despite the fact that proven physical laws easily demonstrate the idea is completely idiotic.

Maybe it's not all ego or ignorance. Maybe we are being too forgiving in some instances. Some people want to believe in crazy concepts. Going against the grain has appeal for some people, even when it's completely obvious they are wrong.

Having been to the center of the earth in the early 1970'S while expierimenting with various mind altering substances,, I can attest that there is no one living there.

 

[barbarossa4122]

Having been to the center of the earth in the early 1970'S while expierimenting with various mind altering substances,, I can attest that there is no one living there.

Lol, no one is there.

 

[Tom Barr]

Hi Tom,

The member that challenged you on TPT a few days ago with some "research article" about no3 levels over 20 ppm causing stunning did not return to pony up, did he.

I vaguely recall, but no pics of their tanks?
Anyways, the results are plain to see, I provided several examples of specific aquatic plant tanks filled with healthly plants etc........and high NO3's, well above the 20ppm ranges.
I'm not saying that 10ppm is bad however, just that their is no factual basis or evidence for high NO3 causign any harm to plants in aquariums, not some rare grown pondweed from the mountains of USA.
I actually collect various alpine pondweeds in CA, it is where we have our highest diversity, these systesm are adpated to spartan inputs from snow melt.

Still, for the 300-400 species, the observations and test are simply not there that support this. I do not need to do anything more other than ask where is my bad/sub par plant growth if.......this hypoothesis is correct or not???
If it's is true as claimed, I should see some evidence, but I do not nor have for 15 years on perhaps 50+ tanks???

The issue and burden is on the poster to show that there is an effect that pertains to aquarist, not natural systems.
And it is just not there. Poo poo me is also a red flag, I usually give them a hard time about that and rightly so.

This typically means they lack the evidence on its own merits.
So they go after other tangents, avoid the question, topic and discussion.

No use in arguing with Stupid, even if they are educated, I've met plenty of uneducated that are very smart.
I was uneducated when I got into this hobby and I corned Paul Sears and many higher grad degrees about PO4, they where sharp as well, but they where at least honest and non personal about things.
But not all are.

We can learn and oiver come this however, and I know many that have, so while they might poo poo you initially, they often do come around a few months, years perhaps later on.
So please, do have some compassion for them personally, but attack the idea without mercy.
I think many folks do not realize that about me. I'm good underneath and am trying to help them, but they have to arrive and come to it of their own free will.
I cannot force anything upon them.

 

[barbarossa4122]

Excellent reply Tom, thank you. I keep following that thread on TPT to see a response from him to no avail, so far.

 

[Tom Barr]

What sold me on EI was the lack of negative effects on fishes which always come first in my book, across a wide range of water parameter's.
I suspect, though I'm not expierienced enough to affirm,, that some species of plant's will perform better under different parameter's much the way fishes do and I shall defer to your knowledge should this not be so.

Well, there's a wide range of comparative evidence about fish and nutrients, and shrimp and nutrients more recently, and even better canary as it were.
So with breeding and nice looking adults and fry, we can test and know that t is very unlikely that they pose any risk.

My tanks are packed with high fish loads and I dose heavy and I have breeding of shrimp and fish in all my tanks.
All..........including my client's tanks as well.

That said, we can test these claims about differences for plants.
What you state is reasonable.
Not all species will have the same optimal conditions.

so the question becomes and is rephrased:

So what are those optimal conditions for species X, Y and Z?

Now you have something to test.
But wait, suppose 5 other posters already have been growign it really well in harder KH's?
Or Bob in GA grew it like mad with 30 micrmols of light?
Or Tom in CA grew it at 30ppm of NO3 like mad and sells gobs every 2 weeks on line???

See?
Now you can look for evidence that folks have falsified the hypothesis with little work.
The observations and falsification may have already been done.

Now.........suppose the question was phrased like this:
Who is having problems with Tonia? Mine will not grow.

This begs for a lot of other folks saying the same thing, "me too's".
We learn less from this and end up with more myth and less rulig out potential causes.

 

[Tom Barr]

I think the main idea here is to help folks who deal with these folks and myths and to better organize a good response and have it be much less personal.
See what the best social solution is, the plants and testing etc are another topic really, but to better resolve some of the issues with people.

This will help folks to get less worn down and irritated,+ stick to the topic.

 

[barbarossa4122]

Does the Rotala Macrandra requires almost 0 nitrates in order to remain/stay red ?