Experimenting, as it should be done

Another simple method/idea along these same equivalent is to use a "control", reference, or as Vaughn mentions, a baseline.

You need some point of reference to compare your results against.
Aquariums are not easy systems for many hobbyist to make similar to each other.

I use non limiting approaches to rule out things like low PO4 or CO2 etc.
Then I know that growth is not limited due to these other factors.

Only then can I limit and manipulate the variable of interest and get a good handle on what is happening with much confidence.

Folks sometimes wonder how I know, or exudes all this confidence, and am so aggressive in my argument when I read what I know to be a myth.

Heck it's not personal, it's just I've done this and bothered to think about it, test it, made the mistakes and came to a very different conclusion based on the evidence I found.

Not what I want it to be
Some seem to have a fore drawn conclusion based on some idea they read.
Or are not honest about their steps.

Vaughn is being honest and humble.
That is a key for any good experimenter.
More than anything I'd say. You realize how little you do know and are not going to try and make more out of the test than is there.

Yes, many folks get excited and think they found the golden fleece............then only later do they realize that it was not the case and it was something else folks had mentioned all along.

Things like CO2 will get folks even 10 years into the hobby.

One thing that I've been considered is using a different type of test method, more based on observation on systems I cannot manipulate and control. We have little choice in many ecological situations, and we need to draw inferences from lakes, rivers etc. Many aquariums also fall into this group.

But suggesting cause and effect in such systems is very hard at best, there are correlations and models to try and requires a lot of statistical keeness. And I've yet to see any aquarist use this approach.

You also learn how to be a good grower in many tanks, situations over time.
Once you get there, then you can test things much better.

You have more control.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

As Jason mentions here,

A goal about what you hope to answer in your query is always a wise idea.
I read virtually every week or so, some well intentioned aquarist trying to set up some test, or read some reference/s but then not using a test method that will answer their question/s they hope to answer. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

You must have a test that answers the question you pose.
You can pose every sort of grandiose question you want, but the limiting issue is WHAT you can practically answer with the resources you have.

That's the bottom line.

While many aquarist certainly are well intentioned, often times the results and the claims without looking into it critically can lead to far more problematic myths and other poor conclusions.

I get in a funk when I see this and complain, but rather than seeing the errors, some assume it's a personal attack. I've tried to tip toe around folk's ego's in the past, but it rarely did any good. They got offended anyway.

I do not get offended, I get worried and re check things to make sure I did not put my foot in my mouth, which I do often do. Then I correct it and try not to do that mistake again.

Vaughn's hind sight shall serve him well.
After being burnt a few times, you learn.
But you have to get burnt and realize it and not be so darn certain, sure of what you did and make sure to go step by step to rule out each assumption as you go through things.

We are feeble minded, more than we realize................so we need Science and other logical progressions to figure much out.

What are the "safest bets" basically.
There is no absolution however.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Yes, but you must give up even the best model/theory if you falsify it.
I think that is more interesting. When I realize something does not work, or is wrong, then it's a good thing.

Then I know I cannot induce algae with PO4, Fe, NO3 etc.........

I still do not know what induces all algae, or every possible cause for algae, but I know what something is not along the way. I have some notions about what might cause algae, but there are always possibilities and likelihoods that there may be multiple causes...........

A typical test will involve a null and an alternative statement:

Ho: that there is a difference in algae blooms, presence/inducement at 0.2ppm, 1ppm, or 2 ppm of PO4.
Ha: that there is no difference in algae blooms, presence/inducement at 0.2ppm, 1ppm, or 2 ppm of PO4.

You can test the PO4 levels, and the algae presence.

These are very specific statements and one of them cannot be true.
I used Paul Sears' notion about algae and PO4 to test.
My alternative hypothesis was that there is no difference.

The questions posed are not geared at who is right or wrong, it's gears only at the set of questions.

Another researcher might repeat it and find that there is a significant difference and accept the Ho/null.

However, did they control for NH4, fish load, CO2, light, current, plant species type, general biomass in the tank etc?
More often than not, the answer is no, they did not.
Scale and time for the responses to occur also play roles.

There are so many things we do not think of and overlook.
And when you have considered many of these things and account for them, ask others about them, acknowledge them, then it shows you have done your homework.

If not, well............