Has anyone noticed this in the aquarium hobby?

Ya know, thinking about it some more, there's a lot of "beliefs" in fishkeeping. People believe whatever and it's about impossible to change a person's beliefs. you can change their perspective or their mind or their ideas, but a belief is pretty hard to get someone off of, it's what they KNOW to be true, even if it doesn't apply anymore or proven incorrect.

People don't understand the science, and instead of trying to, they explain it away and believe that's how it works because it works for them.

Add water sand light, add some ammonia and in a month, voila! cycled. some invisible thing protects the fish! ( and I'm sure there's a small minority out there that doesn't believe it's bacteria, or a cycle even exists. and it's just some sort of magic, like the people that believe the moon is just like the sun because it shines and it's impossible to go there, just like the sun, you cant go there!, or people that deny the earth is a spheroid, regardless of the evidence....) probably theres people that believe the ammonia and the bottled booster is whatever does it, and can't happen any other way also.

Prime example.... and back on topic of the thread I think and hope.

API master test kits. People SWEAR by them on this forum. Even though I see people saying .25 is a false reading, even though anyone that uses the test kit and has a problem is told "well did you follow the directions exactly?" even though I've seen them also just flat out spike and give totally impossible test readings, all of that, day after day and EVERY time testing comes up, there's going to be a handful of folks calling test strips or anything other than the API master test kit "garbage"......

Beliefs. the evidence supports the API test kits having about the same accuracy as any other water testing method, but with the little vials, I guess it makes people feel like chemists and somehow more exacting results even though the chance of operator errors is really high.....

I will never get those API master test kit people to change and see the light, that test strips are just as good as the liquid kits results, easier,cleaner, and faster.

It's such a broad field, a single scientist might focus on a certain strain of bacteria or type, or a specific singular species of fish or animal, or the water quality of a specific lake, or one aspect of the water quality of that specific lake, like the effects of annual rainfall. Just impossible to do the full drill down and research needed on everything in aquatics and all environments, all species in those ecosystems and the functions and roles that all play.

We can't even all agree on evolution or creation, or any of another dozen theories. People believe or they believe that they don't believe. either way they believe what they believe, so if people don't believe that specific environments cause adaptations over time, what hope really is there to convince them of anything really, genetics or DNA, or microscopic bacteria holding everything in the world together and in the grand scheme of things,,,, sooooo whaaaaaat! LOL. I don't need to understand every aspect of how the microwave works or read a study on it in order to cook a hotpocket, I just need to know what buttons to push.

 

I don't need to understand every aspect of how the microwave works or read a study on it in order to cook a hotpocket, I just need to know what buttons to push.

I couldn’t agree more!

So if we agree about this, it seems to me that we should also agree (but likely won’t) that it’s often unnecessary to use all sorts of scientific jargon when we are attempting to, for instance, help a brand new fish keeper cycle a tank. These folks often arrive on this Forum overwhelmed with absolutely no idea what direction to take. And I’d bet that the vast majority of them are not scientists.

In my opinion, the scientific jargon does nothing but overwhelm them more. It unnecessarily complicates an already complicated situation for them. In much the same way that I very effectively operate a microwave by knowing which button to push, the cycling process can be explained without jargon that is going to cause the average person to “check out”.

 

I couldn’t agree more!

So if we agree about this, it seems to me that we should also agree (but likely won’t) that it’s often unnecessary to use all sorts of scientific jargon when we are attempting to, for instance, help a brand new fish keeper cycle a tank. These folks often arrive on this Forum overwhelmed with absolutely no idea what direction to take. And I’d bet that the vast majority of them are not scientists.

In my opinion, the scientific jargon does nothing but overwhelm them more. It unnecessarily complicates an already complicated situation for them. In much the same way that I very effectively operate a microwave by knowing which button to push, the cycling process can be explained without jargon that is going to cause the average person to “check out”.

I'm honestly at the point in my life that if someone can't figure out how to fishless cycle correctly with all the information available on the internet, they don't need my help to get them through it so they can then put fish in it when they have limited understanding of it and will likely crash it and kill the fish.

I'd much rather they take 3 months to cycle and figure it out on their own, they'll learn more, and be a better fish keeper that way.
I do have a soft spot for people stuck in a fish in cycle situation and in over their heads though, I ain't gonna lie about that! but that's more about the safety of the fish, not the fishkeeper.
Yeah, ok, no jargon, here goes:

• The set up: fill tank with water, dechlorinate the water, plug in and turn on filter.
• Step 1 – Add Dr. Tim's bacteria in a bottle per directions.
• Step 2 – Add Dr, Tim's ammonium chloride until you read 2PPM.
• Step 3 – Wait 24 hours
• Step 4 – Test ammonia and nitrite levels
• Step 5 – If you are at 0 ammonia and 0 nitrites, add ammonia until you are at 2PPM again
• Step 6 – Wait 24 hours
• Step 7 – Test ammonia and nitrite, add ammonia until you are at 2PPM again
• Step 8 – Wait 24 hours
• Step 9 – If no ammonia and nitrites, test for nitrates, if high, do a water change to lower levels
• Step 9.5 - if ammonia or nitrites still, repeat step 7, 8 and 9.
• Step 10 – add fish

(disclaimer I do not endorse or support Dr. Tim's products, just picked at random for an example, one size does not fit all, every persons situation is different and your results may vary.)

This will probably crash also on them because somewhere around step 3-4, they will see a butterfly and chase it, and then just skip to step 10 to save time because it takes too long.

Nowadays it doesn't take a whole lot for a person to check out, usually just an alert on their cellphone is all it takes.

 

So if we agree about this, it seems to me that we should also agree (but likely won’t) that it’s often unnecessary to use all sorts of scientific jargon when we are attempting to, for instance, help a brand new fish keeper cycle a tank. These folks often arrive on this Forum overwhelmed with absolutely no idea what direction to take. And I’d bet that the vast majority of them are not scientists.

In my opinion, the scientific jargon does nothing but overwhelm them more. It unnecessarily complicates an already complicated situation for them. In much the same way that I very effectively operate a microwave by knowing which button to push, the cycling process can be explained without jargon that is going to cause the average person to “check out”.

While I agree that it's a good thing to keep it slow for beginners, dumbing it down too much is also a step in the wrong direction, as this enables misconceptions leading to the beliefs Sparky talks about.
Having experience as a teacher, I know it is necessary to keep the information coming. That means to introduce a technical term with an easy to understand explanation, e.g. in a glossary. I'm faring quite well with the middle ground of "as scientific as necessary and as layperson-friendly as possible".

 

Before 1800, humans knew 'how' something could work, but not 'why' it worked that way. We've been able to grow and cultivate crops since the Neolithic Revolution without knowledge of genetics; to make tools from iron without knowledge of metallurgy; to apply medicine without knowledge of microbiology.

You don't need a 'why' in order to enjoy fish keeping or even keep fish apparently healthy.

But some understanding of 'why' has its benefits. For instance, to make the hobby more sustainable before it gets banned. Probably wishful thinking...enjoy it while you can, folks.

And also to simplify matters to beginners. Simple explanations of complex matters is only possible if you truly understand the 'why'.

So a little less lore in Fishlore, has my vote.

(Perhaps my pun earlier in this thread is a little bit better understood. Or I need to improve my (US-)English. Or jokes. Fair enough.)

 

Reading through the replies....I think we need to keep in mind that any controlled experiment with live animals is difficult to perform. It's hard to isolate variables and then you have to avoid sampling bias. Many experiments don't even care about sampling bias which IMO weakens their results.

At my university I've heard horror stories of working with live fish where the control tank started dying off weeks or months into an experiment and there was nothing the researchers could do. Too much time and resources have been sunk already. At the end of the day....many data had to be filled-in aka falsified....

It's the same with human experiments. It so incredibly hard in Canada to get a group of humans to do something that isolates a variable to test for over a period of time... I know some research clinics make-up up to 40% of their data in the worse cases....

There's a reason why there is so much anecdotal evidence in this hobby. On the bright side, we have a good understanding of many of the basic chemistry in an aquarium so from that we can build a healthy foundation. The many successful aquariums around the world is a testament to that

 

Ya know, thinking about it some more, there's a lot of "beliefs" in fishkeeping. People believe whatever and it's about impossible to change a person's beliefs. you can change their perspective or their mind or their ideas, but a belief is pretty hard to get someone off of, it's what they KNOW to be true, even if it doesn't apply anymore or proven incorrect.

People don't understand the science, and instead of trying to, they explain it away and believe that's how it works because it works for them.

Add water sand light, add some ammonia and in a month, voila! cycled. some invisible thing protects the fish! ( and I'm sure there's a small minority out there that doesn't believe it's bacteria, or a cycle even exists. and it's just some sort of magic, like the people that believe the moon is just like the sun because it shines and it's impossible to go there, just like the sun, you cant go there!, or people that deny the earth is a spheroid, regardless of the evidence....) probably theres people that believe the ammonia and the bottled booster is whatever does it, and can't happen any other way also.

Prime example.... and back on topic of the thread I think and hope.

API master test kits. People SWEAR by them on this forum. Even though I see people saying .25 is a false reading, even though anyone that uses the test kit and has a problem is told "well did you follow the directions exactly?" even though I've seen them also just flat out spike and give totally impossible test readings, all of that, day after day and EVERY time testing comes up, there's going to be a handful of folks calling test strips or anything other than the API master test kit "garbage"......

Beliefs. the evidence supports the API test kits having about the same accuracy as any other water testing method, but with the little vials, I guess it makes people feel like chemists and somehow more exacting results even though the chance of operator errors is really high.....

I will never get those API master test kit people to change and see the light, that test strips are just as good as the liquid kits results, easier,cleaner, and faster.

It's such a broad field, a single scientist might focus on a certain strain of bacteria or type, or a specific singular species of fish or animal, or the water quality of a specific lake, or one aspect of the water quality of that specific lake, like the effects of annual rainfall. Just impossible to do the full drill down and research needed on everything in aquatics and all environments, all species in those ecosystems and the functions and roles that all play.

We can't even all agree on evolution or creation, or any of another dozen theories. People believe or they believe that they don't believe. either way they believe what they believe, so if people don't believe that specific environments cause adaptations over time, what hope really is there to convince them of anything really, genetics or DNA, or microscopic bacteria holding everything in the world together and in the grand scheme of things,,,, sooooo whaaaaaat! LOL. I don't need to understand every aspect of how the microwave works or read a study on it in order to cook a hotpocket, I just need to know what buttons to push.

The world ain’t FLAT? API test kits aren’t the best!! I just can’t go on!! Blasphemy I tell you!! Everybody get your shovels and pitchforks!!!

 

I just look up aquarium species in the wild or home aquaria in general; I’m not saying there’s none, but it’s just scarce and hard to find.

Aaaaaahh, that's not specific enough. When looking for fish species, always use the scientific names and avoid common names. Sometimes only the genus name (the first word) is used. Sometimes you have more luck with the group: e.g. use "cyprinid" or "characin".

Here's an example with "Dicrossus":
Google Scholar

Look closely at the titles. You will notice: Besides species descriptions there are rarely direct hits. Sometimes there is only a single mention of the species in a paper. You will also notice that already on page two of the results spanish, portuguese and swedish language works appear.

Btw: Interesting Bycatch from that search!
ANALYSIS OF THE ORNAMENTAL FISH EXPORTS FROM THE AMAZON STATE, BRAZIL | Boletim do Instituto de Pesca

And I just randomly clicked on one of the bulletins (journals): Vol 36 No 1 (2010): BOLETIM DO INSTITUTO DE PESCA | Boletim do Instituto de Pesca

That sounds like very interesting stuff, just in that one issue of the journal.

 

Here's an example with "Dicrossus":
Google Scholar

Most papers referring to this genus are older and still call it Crenicara.

 

I know, it was just for demonstration purposes. I mean, how likely is it you would have used "Laetacara" as a search string, while they were registered as "Cichlasoma" for decades?

 

I know, it was just for demonstration purposes. I mean, how likely is it you would have used "Laetacara" as a search string, while they were registered as "Cichlasoma" for decades?

I think Laetacara were Aequidens? But yes I know, and it helps to know as some older papers are still very useful, a lot of literature by Rosemary Lowe-McConnell for example, though many of the names used are now out of date the ecological information is still good.

 

And here was me thinking that Medakas were the most lab tested upon fish.

I have many thoughts on this thread but I’m reserved to observe / read and keep them to myself.

 

I think Laetacara were Aequidens?

Before that even.

though many of the names used are now out of date the ecological information is still good.

Very important distinction.
And an excellent example why information about wild populations is relevant and - as long as it is descriptive (so social behaviour may fall out of this) - takes much more time to become out of date than other data.

 

Aaaaaahh, that's not specific enough. When looking for fish species, always use the scientific names and avoid common names. Sometimes only the genus name (the first word) is used. Sometimes you have more luck with the group: e.g. use "cyprinid" or "characin".

Here's an example with "Dicrossus":
Google Scholar

Look closely at the titles. You will notice: Besides species descriptions there are rarely direct hits. Sometimes there is only a single mention of the species in a paper. You will also notice that already on page two of the results spanish, portuguese and swedish language works appear.

Btw: Interesting Bycatch from that search!
ANALYSIS OF THE ORNAMENTAL FISH EXPORTS FROM THE AMAZON STATE, BRAZIL | Boletim do Instituto de Pesca

And I just randomly clicked on one of the bulletins (journals): Vol 36 No 1 (2010): BOLETIM DO INSTITUTO DE PESCA | Boletim do Instituto de Pesca

That sounds like very interesting stuff, just in that one issue of the journal.

Sorry I meant to say look AT not look UP, I was meaning in the post. Saying that I don’t just look at aquariums or just at the wild. I almost always use scientific names for that reason. (Which half of the time I have to look up haha)

But it’s been interesting seeing everyone’s opinions on the matter.

 

Dicrossus. Ok you made me look. Thought this was discus related. Not!! Next cause I went right for the first picture it also wasn’t dinosaur related . I came to the conclusion “I’m not really that interested in science”.

Sorry and it’s really not to interested in us. Since I started keeping fish I remember the first commonly sold HOB filter the aquaclear. A marvel in fish keeping. Threw away my corner box filter and under gravel filters and off I went. Wow 50yrs later it’s still a mainstay in the hobby.Wait! We went from a huge phone hanging in the kitchen to a watch phone in this time. But the best science had for us is the aquaclear? (Yes I know I’m joking it is the best). Still can’t make a dependable heater . Remember the ones with sand in them.

Ok lighting has taken off in the right direction. From incandescent to led. Shocking they made them cheaper to run. Remember the fluorescent ones with the fans in them.

But back to filtering and the aquaclear and the ehime canister are 50+ yrs old. All hobs and canisters started with them and haven’t much changed. Ok the wet/dry hit the hobby in the 80s followed by the sump. Not much changing there either. Filtering is the main thing in keeping the aquariums for the majority of keepers. Hey guess they got it right the first time why change.

These are the things the hobby needs to make better. How the common fish keeper can reuse the water change water. And how to do it affordable. Yes we water our plants with it but to reuse the water would cost a lot of money. Amazingly we use ro water for our tanks. What’s the waste on ro water 3-1, 10-1 ?

So much can be done to help the hobby. Yes I get the understanding of the fish. But once removed from the wild and bred in a lab then by wholesaler and sold. These fish have changed. So anything known from the wild or just the first labs notes may just be thrown out the window. Where and how does the science mater than?

To SAC. Thing is this hobby unlike many others it isn’t set in stone. Fish are amazingly adaptable. Ph doesn’t mater like it used to. Keep it stable most fish adapt.
Plants will grow right next to SpongeBob if the tank is taken care of. Yes there’s lots of assumptions your not going to change that. Lots of things we did years ago still work today just like those filters. There’s lot of ways to help this hobby. Thing is so many involved just aren’t involved. It’s a small hobby with an even smaller involved group.

 

I came to the conclusion “I’m not really that interested in science”.

And despite this, you’re still a pretty darn good fish keeper! The blasphemy continues.

 

These are the things the hobby needs to make better. How the common fish keeper can reuse the water change water. And how to do it affordable. Yes we water our plants with it but to reuse the water would cost a lot of money.

In reef keeping there is an option to test for and dose a large number of substances to avoid water changes. I think it is called "Dutch Synthetic Reef" and apparently if your tank is big enough it becomes worthwhile because salt water is RO + more money.

 

Dicrossus. Ok you made me look. Thought this was discus related. Not!! Next cause I went right for the first picture it also wasn’t dinosaur related . I came to the conclusion “I’m not really that interested in science”.

Sorry and it’s really not to interested in us. Since I started keeping fish I remember the first commonly sold HOB filter the aquaclear. A marvel in fish keeping. Threw away my corner box filter and under gravel filters and off I went. Wow 50yrs later it’s still a mainstay in the hobby.Wait! We went from a huge phone hanging in the kitchen to a watch phone in this time. But the best science had for us is the aquaclear? (Yes I know I’m joking it is the best). Still can’t make a dependable heater . Remember the ones with sand in them.

Ok lighting has taken off in the right direction. From incandescent to led. Shocking they made them cheaper to run. Remember the fluorescent ones with the fans in them.

But back to filtering and the aquaclear and the ehime canister are 50+ yrs old. All hobs and canisters started with them and haven’t much changed. Ok the wet/dry hit the hobby in the 80s followed by the sump. Not much changing there either. Filtering is the main thing in keeping the aquariums for the majority of keepers. Hey guess they got it right the first time why change.

These are the things the hobby needs to make better. How the common fish keeper can reuse the water change water. And how to do it affordable. Yes we water our plants with it but to reuse the water would cost a lot of money. Amazingly we use ro water for our tanks. What’s the waste on ro water 3-1, 10-1 ?

So much can be done to help the hobby. Yes I get the understanding of the fish. But once removed from the wild and bred in a lab then by wholesaler and sold. These fish have changed. So anything known from the wild or just the first labs notes may just be thrown out the window. Where and how does the science mater than?

To SAC. Thing is this hobby unlike many others it isn’t set in stone. Fish are amazingly adaptable. Ph doesn’t mater like it used to. Keep it stable most fish adapt.
Plants will grow right next to SpongeBob if the tank is taken care of. Yes there’s lots of assumptions your not going to change that. Lots of things we did years ago still work today just like those filters. There’s lot of ways to help this hobby. Thing is so many involved just aren’t involved. It’s a small hobby with an even smaller involved group.

I'm trying to find something that would be considered blasphemous to science, but I can't find it. Another testimony that science is anything but intuitive. Sure, science is considered the prime driver for innovation, but it is not innovation. Science is no more than gaining falsifiable understanding through a certain procedure. It's that boring.

The current scientific knowledge related to our hobby is a bit different in certain regards than what is generally found on fishlore. Which is anything but odd. As I mentioned earlier, the human brain does a terrible job of distinguishing the concepts of "because of" and "despite of", whereas science is all about making this distinction.

Example: iron. In case of an iron deficiency, plant species won't color red. When iron is dosed, these plants could color red. So whenever a plant species that is supposed to color red, doesn't show red, we tell someone to dose more iron. Next, these plants might actually turn red because of the dosage. Except, in the latter scenario, perhaps there was sufficient iron already, but something else was lacking that caused the plants not to show red. However, the iron surplus produced anthocyanins to protect the plant, which can also cause a red-ish color. Hence the (fish)lore continues; iron is important.

So anyone can be a great fish (or plant-)keeper, without the science. This is very much true. And yes, aquaclear's are great. They create water movement. It's fantastic.

 

. And yes, aquaclear's are great. They create water movement. It's fantastic.

Now look you see with your scientific outlook you’ve missed the most important part,feature and ground breaking aspect of the aquaclear!! Yes sure it moves water . But much much more importatant and it’s number one selling point!! You don’t have to reach into the tank the remove the filter!! Water flow. This was also the dawn of early aquarium salesmanship.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Let's shake hands, drink a beer and enjoy our tanks!

 

I'm trying to find something that would be considered blasphemous to science, but I can't find it. Another testimony that science is anything but intuitive. Sure, science is considered the prime driver for innovation, but it is not innovation.

Science is no more than gaining falsifiable understanding through a certain procedure, without an objective, without an end. The current scientific knowledge related to our hobby is a bit different in certain regards than what is generally found on fishlore. Which is anything but odd. As I mentioned earlier, the human brain does a terrible job of distinguishing the concepts of "because of" and "despite of", whereas science is all about making this distinction.

Example: if there's an iron deficiency, plant species won't color red. When iron is dosed, these plants color red. So when a plant species that is supposed to color red, doesn't show red, we tell someone that he or she should dose more iron. Next, these plants might turn red because of the dosage. Except, in the second scenario, perhaps there was sufficient iron already, but something else was lacking. However, the iron surplus produced anthocyanins to protect the plant, which can also cause a red-ish color. Hence the (fish)lore continues; iron is important.

So anyone can be a great fish (or plant-)keeper, without the science. This is very much true. And yes, aquaclear's are great. They create water movement. It's fantastic.

Yeah. I don't keep plants, but I've tried. I've heard a saying that goes like "your plants will only perform as well as your lowest nutrient" something like that, and I guess the meaning is, if you are low or missing one thing, it's out of balance and causes the plants to not be able to get much if any of what it needs, because they need it all in the right proportions.... and then of course you can have too much.

I'm in south Florida, I was trying to grow tomatoes, peppers, hot peppers, cukes, some herbs, a "salad garden" basically.
Anyways, summer is blistering hot and humidity is always 65% or higher, you can water in the morning and the forecast is no rain, and then get a pop-up thunderstorm that dumps 5" of water in a half hour.
With or without the rain, tomato plants are putting off roots from the main stem 3 feet off the ground just from the moisture that is constant. With the rain, tomatoes get too much water, then the heat comes on and they split and Crack and go bad.
Way too much water, sun is too hot, nothing grows well down here when it's all growing well in other zones further north. Took me two years of failures to figure out I needed to plant in October and grow through March, using pots and planters so I could move them in case of a cold snap in Dec. Jan or Feb.
Even then after finding the ideal 6 months to grow, fruit poduction is too low to make it worth while to bother. Small tomatoes and not many, just a couple peppers per plants still too damp from humidity for good pollination.

My point is, even with the time, effort, research, guidance and trying things different, some things just don't work for everyone, theres a reason there's no farms anywhere near here and the majority of the farms to the south are either fish farms or tree nurseries and mostly palms. Plenty of farms heading towards Central and North florida though, All the science in the world won't make me a productive crop farmer unless I start growing mangos those suckers do great every year, except for my neighbors tree, he's never gotten fruit no matter how much water or ferts he puts on it plenty of flowers, not a single mango ever while everyone else have trees heavy with them.

Maybe it's a green thumb, maybe there's a water thumb too and some places, some water, it's just too difficult to really keep an aquarium also.
I gotta wonder if there's fishkeepers in Alaska..... must be someone. Lol

 

Ah his may be an ornamental mango . I do grow plants. But where not talking outside weather here we’re talking our indoor tanks. Thing with plants is they have always been secondary to the fish. For me just better decor for the tanks. So with that outlook I’ve tried many plants. Again so many written that won’t grow in my warm water. But I’ve grown 25+ different types. What I found is when they melt leave the roots. The plants take time to adapt. Most will grow sometime down the line. One took over a year. Been growing constant since. Now once you find what will grow just use them. Most of mine are grown in pots now. No substrate in the tanks. All growing great. All have no problem in the high heat. Science or perseverance? It’s also amazing how many fish can adapt to warmer waters.