Science, Observations and our ways of deciphering and solving problems

[Ted_C]

This is sort of off-topic - but then again it's sort of right on topic.

I put the science channel on last night and the dramatization of the study behind the challenger disaster in '86 was on. Afterwords (from 10 PM -11 PM) there was a little documentary on Richard Feynman - one of the scientists on the panel.

Feynman died before my time. I was 18 when he passed. I was 16 when the challenger disaster occured. Neither high school science or college science classes I took ever made reference to him (and I took a lot of science classes across multiple universities - started off as a chemical engineering major @ Penn State and moved on to secondary education - chemistry @ Edinboro). Classes like Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Physical Chemistry filled my days.

A few things clicked last night after 30 years of wondering as I watched these programs. I always had trouble with the equations in Physical Chemistry reffering to quantum mechanics. I never really got it because I was thinking in absolute terms - like - in an atom - the electron is here or there at any point in time. The big kicker I got last night that put it all together for me was that the equations were nothing more than imprecise predictions or probablilties of what's happening at a quantum level. That electron in my example is actually everywhere.

The big relevation I got yesterday was how our scientific methods we apply to problems in our tanks have been corrupted. You all know how I feel about the discussions we have with Chloramines. There was another post yesterday (from the miami club) about this. I refrained from jumping in.

From Wikiquotes http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman:

First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is "“ if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

Taking this back to the chloramines example: We make a guess that chloramines have wiped out the SPS in our tanks. We dont measure it, we dont experiment on it - we just stop right there and make the assumption that's our problem. An example of an experiment in this respect is: If chloramines are present in our water supply - why are others unaffected? Are they running the more expensive chloramine blocks? Are they performing maintenance on their RODI systems more often than others?

I never realized this before - but my whole life has been lived under feynman's premise. I might not have argued my point of view correctly (more on this later), but my thought process is there. It applies to so much in our world too.

Take the debate with global warming as an example. We have all these environmental scientists telling us we need to go back to the dark ages and quit burning fuels that produce CO2 - because it will warm the atmosphere, melt the polar ice caps and flood the costal regions . I have yet to see any experimental data or observations that the sea level has risen. Back in the 90's - I remember reading about some tiny little populated polynesian island that would have been threatened by rising sea waters. Where's the observation after 30 years that this island has been consumed by the sea due to global warming? Yet there is a large percentage of the population of the world which beleives we are in a crisis due to the export of CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you'd like to hear more - Youtube does have all 7 lectures of Richard Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk

 

[Ted_C]

Our culture and the scientific Culture - getting your point across

Our culture and the scientific Culture - getting your point across

Like I said in the above post - How do we discuss scientfic issues? Usually we go on the offensive and attack differning points of view. I'm guilty of this.

From BrainPickings: http://www.brainpickings.org/index....role-of-scientific-culture-in-modern-society/

I believe that we must attack these things in which we do not believe. Not attack by the method of cutting off the heads of the people, but attack in the sense of discuss. I believe that we should demand that people try in their own minds to obtain for themselves a more consistent picture of their own world

I think that we must mainly write some articles. Now what would happen? The person who believes in astrology will have to learn some astronomy. The person who believes in faith healing might have to learn some medicine, because of the arguments going back and forth; and some biology. In other words, it will be necessary that science become relevant.

And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit.

That last one - to me - is very profound. and it goes both ways too. Not only do I need to find a better way to communicate my viewpoints (without cutting someone's head off) - but I need to be open that my guess is wrong.

 

[thatreefguy22]

HAHA the rhino!!!

 

[rogergolf66]

that's all I have to say for now.

 

[Ted_C]

I'm not really referncing your previous issues or anyone else with this Rodger. I am just really impressed with this Dr. Richard Feynman and the simple way he can convey scientific principles. I wasn't in any way using your issues as an example. In your case - your probably right on the money though.

I think it's a good frame of mind to be in when being marketed in a fish store or when the next new product or method comes out.

1 - Assume what you hear about the product / method is a guess.
2 - Ask for the data that backs up the guess.
3 - Ask for the experimental results that back up the data behind the guess.

If any of those can't be substantiated - then the guess is wrong and you should pass on the product/method.

Lets take an example other than chloramines and apply this feynman premise. The requirement to dose trace elements:

1 - the guess is: since corals contain trace elements (like K, I, Fe, Sr, Ba, etc) then we must replace trace elements via dosing or water changes.
2 - The calculations of data are all based on taking a coral and dissolving it and analyzing the elements that make up the coral. Concentrations of those elements are then determined.
3 - Experiment: Take Emmet's tank as an example. As far as I know, he doesn't dose trace elements. He only doses two part. Why is his tank so spectacular?

If the assumption is correct that Emmett doesn't dose trace elements- then the guess is wrong.

Its a bueatiful idea that we need to dose trace elements. it seems to make logical sense. But it's wrong based on experimental data.

 

[rogergolf66]

I was smilling cause u said u could be wrong sometimes was funny. For the Record emmet dosnt use 2 part he uses calcium reactors so the trace elements are dosed as corals dissolve.

 

[ichthyman]

apply this feynman premise. The requirement to dose trace elements:

1 - the guess is: since corals contain trace elements (like K, I, Fe, Sr, Ba, etc) then we must replace trace elements via dosing or water changes.
2 - The calculations of data are all based on taking a coral and dissolving it and analyzing the elements that make up the coral. Concentrations of those elements are then determined.
3 - Experiment: Take Emmet's tank as an example. As far as I know, he doesn't dose trace elements. He only doses two part. Why is his tank so spectacular?

If the assumption is correct that Emmett doesn't dose trace elements- then the guess is wrong.

Its a bueatiful idea that we need to dose trace elements. it seems to make logical sense. But it's wrong based on experimental data.

LOL I talked about this today.........Or it could mean that those elements are unwanted by the coral and sinked into the carbonate skeleton as way to remove them from animal's tissue. With the exception of calcium and carbonate, just because an element is found in a coral's skeleton doesn't mean the animal actually needed/unwanted said element.

 

[Ted_C]

I thought the same thing - but I'm having trouble finding studies about trace elements in corals.

The best article I've been able to find is here: http://www.coralscience.org/main/articles/nutrition-6/how-corals-feed

It is also clear that metals can be bound by organic molecules such as metallothionins; these proteins actively bind to metals rendering them harmless. This allows transport of these molecules through the bodies of countless organisms. This process is called chelation, and the involved organic molecule is called the chelator. It takes place in bacteria, algae and numerous animal species. Bacteria and algae also secrete these molecules into the water, thereby neutralizing metals for safe uptake. It has also been shown by some aquarists that corals do not incorporate heavy metals into their skeletons to such an extent as would be expected based on water concentrations46. Even at high metal concentrations, skeletal contents of aquarium corals often show a deficit in metal composition compared to wild specimens. This indicates many metals in the aquarium are not biologically available. Either way, supplementing heavy metals should be done with care.

 

[Ted_C]

I was smilling cause u said u could be wrong sometimes was funny.

This isn't just for me though. That's why I posted this out here on the interwebs. While I can't tell anyone else what to do or how to think - I personally beleive the premise that Feynman put forth is a great way to think for ourselves and everyone else and filter out the B.S.

Example:
How many times have you seen someone post a grainy out of focus picture of something in their tank asking for an ID and someone comes back with only: "Copepod / Amphipod"?

It literally only takes 10 seconds more for the responder to post a picture they may have or a link to another page that backs up their guess.