# "Aquarium Science" has some new planted tank articles



## dw1305 (5 Nov 2021)

Hi all,
<"Aquarium Science"> have written a few more <"planted tank web pages">.

They are the usual mixture of <"the good, the bad and the ugly">, but there were bits I really enjoyed, to quote.


> _......... Seachem makes a whole line of very overpriced and in many cases useless products for planted tanks.  It is advantageous to look at each of these products........_


cheers Darrel


----------



## NotoriousENG (5 Nov 2021)

The sentence about fertilizing with urine was interesting as well

"Humans urinate urea, so human urine can be used to fertilize an aquarium. Urine averages 2% urea. So one needs roughly 75 grams of urine or one third of a cup of human urine added twice a week. The big problem here is that the concentration of urea varies a huge amount depending on how much a human is drinking. This makes it difficult to control."

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> but there were bits I really enjoyed, to quote.
> _......... Seachem makes a whole line of very overpriced and in many cases useless products for planted tanks. It is advantageous to look at each of these products........_


Thanks Darrel for reminding me of all the money I've wasted over the years on their potions   I still have a bunch of this sitting unused in my cabinet along side Tropica fertilizers...  With the possible exception of Excel, which I don't think the average hobbyist can DIY (?), all these product are essentially +98% water and exponentially more expensive than anything you DIY. In all fairness to Seachem, I do like and buy some of their other products such as the Tidal filters, filter medias and select items such as Prime.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (5 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> In all fairness to Seachem, I do like and buy some of their other products such as the Tidal filters, filter medias and select items such as Prime.


I would agree, I don't like <"their advertising">, but a lot of their products "work" and the "Tidal Filters" look pretty  good..

I think fertilisers are different from everything else, in that every K+ ion is the same as every other one, the only thing that differs is <"their price">

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii (5 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> <"Aquarium Science"> have written a few more <"planted tank web pages">.
> 
> They are the usual mixture of <"the good, the bad and the ugly">, but there were bits I really enjoyed, to quote.
> ...



. . . a little too heavy on the “bad and ugly” for my taste Darrel.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> . . . a little too heavy on the “bad and ugly” for my taste Darrel.


It is a shame really, a lot of it is really good, but when he moves onto planted tanks it all starts to unravel a bit.

I might try contacting him.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (5 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> It is a shame really, a lot of it is really good, but when he moves onto planted tanks it all starts to unravel a bit.
> 
> I might try contacting him.


Hi Darrel (@dw1305)

I guess you must have his contact details? There have been times when I would have liked to contact him but he is keen not to disclose his identity, etc. I have to say that I really like his site although I don't always agree with what he says. But, such instances are few and far between. What's more, chances are that he's right and I'm wrong. I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (5 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> I would agree, I don't like <"their advertising">, but a lot of their products "work" and the "Tidal Filters" look pretty good..


Hi again, Darrel (@dw1305)

If my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that the _Tidal Filter_ range are made by Sicce, an Italian company.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> It is a shame really, a lot of it is really good, but when he moves onto planted tanks it all starts to unravel a bit.
> 
> ...


I addition, I think we should ask Clive / @ceg4048 to contact him as well  ... I see a pay-per-view opportunity here


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi again, Darrel (@dw1305)
> 
> If my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that the _Tidal Filter_ range are made by Sicce, an Italian company.
> 
> JPC


Correct but sold and marketed by Seachem, I currently own and run 4 - best HOBs I've ever owned (and I have owned a lot of different HOBs and Canister filters over the years), and never failed or had any issues with them.


----------



## John q (5 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi again, Darrel (@dw1305)
> 
> If my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that the _Tidal Filter_ range are made by Sicce, an Italian company.


Collaboration between seachem and Sicce, you're both correct.


----------



## MichaelJ (6 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.


Well, I hate to disagree with you on that one JPC. I know you have a scientific background (just as I do) but his (aquariumscience.org) approach is not very scientific at all...heck we dont even know if he have the background that he claims... The write-ups comes across as very overbearing, patronizing and obnoxious. He mostly rush in with claims that are not backed by any practical experience or scientific approach that we know of. The fact that there are zero track record there is a massive red flag for me. Just imagine reading a scientific paper, on say Physics, where the author(s) are anonymous with no references or background ? ... I don't think you would take that very serious.  I do like contrarian opinions and maverick approaches and different takes on these matters, but his approach is just not very compelling and does not meet the high standards of such claims. For me extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence.

Just some examples:

"Do *NOT* fertilize plants until they start putting out new shoots. And then, initially, only very lightly fertilize. If one fertilizes too much too early one will get an algae overgrowth which will kill the plants."

 "Many make the mistake of adding a “complete” soluble fertilizer to the water of a planted aquarium. This is a fertilizer which contains nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. This is not wise. It will result in algae overgrowth. ..... By adding fertilizer only to the substrate *ONLY* rooted plants can access the fertilizer and thus* ONLY* the rooted plants can flourish."

"Phosphorus has limited solubility and is definitely best supplied through the roots. In the water column phosphorus is a major reason for algae growth."

"Nitrogen is very soluble, and is best supplied in the water column as ammonium."

The list goes on and on...

I know these quote are taken somewhat out of context and bits of the info on the site is actually very good - specifically on fish-only tanks  ... but with no track record and no background reasoning behind the claims its very hard to take any of the controversial claims serious.  With the UKAPS's designated Experts (Clive / @ceg4048  and Darrel / @dw1305  ... I know there are several others here that merit that designation, but I'm making a point here, so no offense) you can at least track their deep history (14 and 13 years respectively.. and 22000 posts between them) of Q/A and engagement on this forum and read their evolving experiences, reasoning and advice and tell from the feedback if it works or not (narrators voice: It works!). Of course, they are not always right, no one is, but the likelihood they are is overwhelming given their track record.

Point is, when you take the influential high ground and conduct yourself as an authority, as aquariumscience.org is trying to do, you better have the ability to back your claims. aquariumscience.org just falls flat and doesn't pass that bar for me.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2021)

Yeah, this is just more pseudoscience from The Matrix. I love the part about phosphorous's limited solubility. I wonder if the municipal water companies who dissolve PO4  in the systems are aware of this so-called fact.
I never knew it was impossible to keep lots of fish in a planted aquarium. Wow, gripping stuff.
It's funny how some folks eagerly digest this material without ever requiring any kind of scientific approach. I reckon that's just down to confirmation bias. When we, on this website, present information, we're consistently barraged with calls for "independent peer review", yet these (ahem) "mavericks" somehow are allowed free passage.

Cheers,


----------



## erwin123 (6 Nov 2021)

I very much prefer the 2hr aquarist articles where he actually discusses ADA style dosing and EI , and their relative merits. 

In Aquariumscience the author is prone to saying 'just do what I say' without trying to explain why his method is better than other established fertilisation regimes. The 'elephant in the room' question the author fails to deal with is that if too much ferts cause algae, is he saying that EI causes algae (he is obviously aware of EI as he gives it a passing mention, without commenting on whether EI will cause algae even though he implies it does).


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2021)

Exactly. He's aware of EI but has he tried it? Don't know.
His claim is easy to falsify, right? EI dosers add too much ferts and don't get algae.
We can add the appropriate nutrient to a tank experiencing algae and the bloom is reduced or eliminated, further falsifying the claim.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (6 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> I guess you must have his contact details?


I don't, it would have to be via the web site.


ceg4048 said:


> His claim is easy to falsify, right? EI dosers add too much ferts and don't get algae.


That would be one of my problems with the web site. When I first read about EI my initial thought was that it had a <"_snowball in hell's_"> chance of working, but as you read through the forum (and particularly look at the pictures) it becomes obvious that it does work. At that point, after the pictures, you really have two options, you can either try and <"understand what is happening">, or you can become an "EI denier", in face of overwhelming evidence.


MichaelJ said:


> Point is, when you take the influential high ground and conduct yourself as an authority, as aquariumscience.org is trying to do, you better have the ability to back your claims.


That is also an issue for me, we all have things <"we believe in">, and we may be pretty sure we are right, but they are, to some degree, <"faith" positions"> and we need to ackowledge that.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (6 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> That is also an issue for me, we all have things <"we believe in">, and we may be pretty sure we are right, but they are, to some degree, <"faith" positions> and we need to ackowledge that.



Suppose you can’t really talk anyone out of a belief, that’s the point. They operate in the absence of evidence, in the face of ambiguity and as a default.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try talking with folks who’s point of view you vehemently disagree with though. Sort of the way the Royal Astronomical Society made Samuel Shenton a fellow and even facilitated his lectures as founder of The Flat Earth Society. Tough crowd for Sam 😂 They still couldn’t change his mind though.


----------



## Nick potts (6 Nov 2021)

Had a read through some of the articles (mostly the planted ones), sounds to me like mostly the ramblings of a "superior" degreed chemist with a hate for "profit-driven marketers" who likes to stay anonymous.

A lot of what he says can be disproven just on here in a few minutes.


----------



## dw1305 (6 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try talking with folks who’s point of view you vehemently disagree with though


Agreed. 


Nick potts said:


> of a "superior" degreed chemist


Back to <"Lord Kelvin and stamp collecting">.  I think "shades of grey" are conceptually easier for scientists who work in the "softer", more inferential sciences. 


Nick potts said:


> with a hate for "profit-driven marketers"


I'm good with that one. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (6 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> I have to say that I really like his site although I don't always agree with what he says. But, such instances are few and far between. What's more, chances are that he's right and I'm wrong. I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.


I wouldn't argue with that. I think they are laudable aims and the majority of what he says makes perfect sense (or re-inforces my own prejudices, delete as appropriate). This is what he has to say about <"Diana Walstad's book">. 


> .......Her book is called “The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium”. If one wants to know this topic in depth from a true expert, I heartily recommend this book (I think I’ve probably read it about five times!). She is the *ONLY* aquarium book author that “did it right” and based her work on what the scientific articles say about the topic rather on parroted myths and profit minded marketing hype.......



cheers Darrel


----------



## sparkyweasel (6 Nov 2021)

"Sanity Check
Let’s do some simple math here. One PPM per 100 gallons is 0.36 grams. One ppm per 20 gallons is 0.09 grams. Many have established that any decent planted aquarium will reduce the CO2 levels from 10 to 4 ppm in three hours"
I think I will stop reading that now.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (6 Nov 2021)

Whatever you think of the author he’s being cheeky lifting photos from social media and associating it with his advice. Social media copyright is image copyright.

His site:






Original Facebook post:





There’s a certain irony that he used a photo of a tank that was setup in a manner that was the complete opposite to anything he suggests.

No credit on the photo @Aquarium Gardens so assuming this is copyright infringement.


----------



## jaypeecee (6 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I don't, it would have to be via the web site.


Hi @dw1305 

I couldn't find a way of contacting him via his website. Perhaps I missed something?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (6 Nov 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Well, I hate to disagree with you on that one JPC. I know you have a scientific background (just as I do) but his (aquariumscience.org) approach is not very scientific at all...


Hi @MichaelJ 

No problem, Michael. What is interesting to me about his website is how he has highlighted our polarized views. And I've noticed a similar response on other forums. It's also interesting to speculate on his motive behind _AquariumScience_. His choice of a .org domain extension is used by nonprofit organizations. So, presumably, he's not in it for the money. Beyond that, we can but guess!

JPC


----------



## sparkyweasel (6 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @dw1305
> 
> I couldn't find a way of contacting him via his website. Perhaps I missed something?
> 
> JPC


There is a comment box at the bottom of the home page.


----------



## jaypeecee (6 Nov 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> There is a comment box at the bottom of the home page.


Hi @sparkyweasel 

Indeed, there is! Thanks ever so much.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (7 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> I couldn't find a way of contacting him via his website. Perhaps I missed something?


I must admit I haven't looked. 


sparkyweasel said:


> There is a comment box at the bottom of the home page.


I'll try that.

cheers Darrel


----------



## PARAGUAY (7 Nov 2021)

Its definetly not Tom Barr or Denis Wong😄


----------



## tiger15 (7 Nov 2021)

Nick potts said:


> Had a read through some of the articles (mostly the planted ones), sounds to me like mostly the ramblings of a "superior" degreed chemist with a hate for "profit-driven marketers" who likes to stay anonymous.
> 
> A lot of what he says can be disproven just on here in a few minutes.


I will skip reading his articles.  Having a science degree doesn't necessarily validate his arguments. A case in point is Dennis Wong.  His articles are well written, thoroughly researched  and supported by science and practice.  I have not found any of his arguments I disagree with.  Yet I am surprised that his profession is not in science, but in legal and business,.



dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I wouldn't argue with that. I think they are laudable aims and the majority of what he says makes perfect sense (or re-inforces my own prejudices, delete as appropriate). This is what he has to say about <"Diana Walstad's book">.
> 
> ...


Another case in point is Diana Walstad.  She has a degree in microbiology and her book,  Ecology of Planted Aquarium, is well regarded in the hobby.  I found her arguments convincing, thoroughly referenced,  and sound scientific on paper, yet cannot always be backed up in practice.  One example is that she promotes no water change, no dosing approach by backing up her argument with data that fish food and tap water contain all nutrients plants need.  

Ecology is not an exact science as no two sites are identical, not to mention that  an aquarium is a different environment.  Transferring findings from outdoor studies to a glass box environment is an extrapolation and not necessarily applicable.


----------



## dw1305 (8 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> And I've noticed a similar response on other forums. It's also interesting to speculate on his motive behind _AquariumScience_. His choice of a .org domain extension is used by nonprofit organizations. So, presumably, he's not in it for the money.


I honestly think the main motive is just to help people have successful aquariums that they can enjoy, and that is a laudable aim.

I think of him/her/them as an aquatic <"James Randi debunking the paranormal">. I would actually recommend <"it as a web site">, other than the <"planted tank pages">.


jaypeecee said:


> What is interesting to me about his website is how he has highlighted our polarized views.


I think that it is quite divisive, mainly because it is very "black" and "white", there are no shades of grey and no nuanced arguments, it is just <"_my way or the highway__">_. If you express an opinion, but with the proviso it is an opinion, usually people <"won't take offence">, but if you say <"*THE EARTH IS DEFINITELY FLAT*"> then people are probably less likely to listen to the rest of your argument, even if that does make some sense.


tiger15 said:


> Another case in point is Diana Walstad. She has a degree in microbiology and her book, Ecology of Planted Aquarium, is well regarded in the hobby. I found her arguments convincing, thoroughly referenced, and sound scientific on paper, yet cannot always be backed up in practice. One example is that she promotes no water change, no dosing approach by backing up her argument with data that fish food and tap water contain all nutrients plants need.


She revised her opinion about water movement and water changes, have a look at <"Walstad revises">. I'd be honest and say that I've always felt that using an organic rich sediment to generate CO2 without sufficient water movement has the potential to be a <"recipe for disaster">.


tiger15 said:


> Ecology is not an exact science as no two sites are identical, not to mention that an aquarium is a different environment. Transferring findings from outdoor studies to a glass box environment is an extrapolation and not necessarily applicable.


That is the problem for me. I can see the appeal of <"empirical measurement">, but there are a lot of variables and I think <"a multivariate approach"> is more likely to be successful.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Back to <"Lord Kelvin and stamp collecting">. I think "shades of grey" are conceptually easier for scientists who work in the "softer", more inferential sciences.


Hi Darrel (@dw1305)

When Newtonian mechanics is sufficient to describe our observations, I can handle that. But, there must be many shades of grey for those working in Quantum Mechanics. Heisenberg encapsulated this in his famous _Uncertainty Principle_. Of all Newton's laws, I like his fourth one the best. Fourth, I hear you say. Yes, his fourth. If you'd like to know more, I'll PM you. 

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Darrel (@dw1305)
> Of all Newton's laws, I like his fourth one the best.
> JPC


_When people are mad, they move faster _?


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Nov 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> _When people are mad, they move faster _?


I've PM'd you. 

JPC


----------



## sparkyweasel (8 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> I think that it is quite divisive, mainly because it is very "black" and "white", there are no shades of grey and no nuanced arguments, it is just <"_my way or the highway__">_.


Which is funny when he says, "And above all there is simply no “right way” to do things in this hobby." on his home page.


----------



## Rockfella (8 Nov 2021)

This !


----------



## dw1305 (9 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


Rockfella said:


> This !


Yes, it is an interesting table. 


> .......... _Green is the “Alert” level where increased testing is called for, yellow is the “Alarm” level where one should do a 50% water change. And “Toxic” is the level where one should do a 75% water change. Note many of these levels require diluting the aquarium water with 9 parts of distilled water. Test the diluted water. Multiply the results by ten and you have the levels in the aquarium.
> 
> The numbers for the toxicity of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate will come as a shock to most experienced hobbyists. But the numbers are supported by a lot of research by universities_...........


I'll ignore the "_but what happens when the pH rises?_" argument, other than to <"say your fish die">, but I'd agree these aren't the sort of water parameters that many of us would be happy with.  He actually <"acknowledge this">.


> .......... _Having said that one should keep ammonia at the “undetectable level”. Note that the API ammonia test will measure 0.25 ppm (very light green) even with distilled water. So “undetectable level” actually means equal to or less than 0.25 ammonia as measured by the API test. An aquarium which has ammonia at an “undetectable level” is probably a healthy aquarium with low bacterial counts.  Low bacterial count is always the chief goal in aquarium water. Low ammonia and low bacteria count typically go hand in hand in any established aquarium _........





> ........_ And this supposedly gives one a clear picture of whatever disease the fish has. This is simply hogwash. There is simply no way to determine what disease a fish has from the water parameters. And red spots on a fish are only very rarely ammonia poisoning, 99% of the time it is a bacterial disease called “hemorrhagic septicemia”.
> 
> A related myth is that it is that somehow it is important to test your water frequently with test kits such as API Master test Kit, Nutrafin Test Kit, Tetra easy strips, Sera Aquatest, API 5 in 1 Test Strips or the Fluval Water test Kit. This makes a lot of money for a lot of manufacturers of test kits but it does little good for most aquarium hobbyists........._


When I first read through the site a thought was that a lot of the information was more applicable to waste water treatment (or at a pinch aquaculture), but at that time I had no idea about quite how <"insane the stocking densities were">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (9 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> _When people are mad, they move faster _?


How about: "_when people are mad they write posts and emails they will later regret?"_


jaypeecee said:


> Of all Newton's laws, I like his fourth one the best.


I think there really is a fourth law? Something to do with the loss of heat over time. 
So: "_If your blood is boiling wait until it cools before you send that email_"

You may be getting a theme here. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## NotoriousENG (9 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> I think there really is a fourth law? Something to do with the loss of heat over time.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Newton's law of cooling that relates temperture difference to heat rate. Most commonly used to describe convective heat transfer.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tiger15 (9 Nov 2021)

Newton has contributions in many field:  Mathematics, heat, optics, mechanics and gravity.   Newton's first, second and third law refer to his contributions in mechanics and gravity only.


----------



## Andy Taylor (9 Nov 2021)

If only Newton had a planted aquarium


----------



## MichaelJ (9 Nov 2021)

Andy Taylor said:


> If only Newton had a planted aquarium


He was dabbling in alchemy ... so there is that.


----------



## tiger15 (9 Nov 2021)

Andy Taylor said:


> If only Newton had a planted aquarium


Aquarium has not been invented in Newton’s time, and his interest is in the physical world, not the natural world.  Scientific studies of the natural world didn't begin until two centuries later, when Darwin, Wallace, Larmack et el became interest in how the natural world really works instead of accepting creationism as the gospel.  Although aquarium has already been invented by then, I am not aware of Darwin or any renown scientists kept an aquarium.


----------



## MichaelJ (9 Nov 2021)

tiger15 said:


> Scientific studies of the natural world didn't begin until two centuries later, when Darwin, Wallace, Larmack et el became interest in how the natural world


That is of course not really true... The ancients had naturalists as well. And there were precursors to Darwin et al.s findings but of course they didn't have the knowledge and methodology to pull it all together and make the great leaps. They were standing on the shoulders of Giants just as Newton did.  Also the Sumerians kept fishes in artificial ponds 4500 years ago.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## PARAGUAY (9 Nov 2021)

@MichaelJ  Your right about Walsted change of advice on water change. Think of for years activated carbon and aged water. Some very scientific brains advised that and later changed their minds. Quite positive and science suppose always evolving


----------



## tiger15 (10 Nov 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> That is of course not really true... The ancients had naturalists as well. And there were precursors to Darwin et al.s findings but of course they didn't have the knowledge and methodology to pull it all together and make the great leaps. They were standing on the shoulders of Giants just as Newton did.  Also the Sumerians kept fishes in artificial ponds 4500 years ago.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Keeping fish in ponds and vessels have been around for thousands of years, but the first see through glass aquarium was not invented until 1832.  









						aquarium
					

aquarium,  receptacle for maintaining aquatic organisms, either freshwater or marine, or a facility in which a collection of aquatic organisms is displayed or studied.     The earliest known aquarists were the Sumerians, who kept fishes in artificial ponds at least 4,500 years ago; records of...



					www.britannica.com
				




Naturalists have been around in ancient time, but their knowledge is not scientific until the concepts of evolution, genetic, microbiology etc were developed in the 19th century.   There is no biology without evolution, no chemistry without the periodic table, and both were discovered in late 19th century.  In comparison to physical science which began with Galileo in the 16th century, biological and chemical science are late comer.


----------



## sparkyweasel (10 Nov 2021)

Leonhard Baldner  (1612 – 1694) was one of the early pioneers of glass aquariums.
Samuel Pepys recorded, on 28th May 1665, being shown "fishes kept in a glass of water" - which people usually assume were goldfish, although he described them as "finely marked they are, being foreign" and some suggest that they could have been Paradise Fish as he noted the markings rather than just the colour.
Pepys


----------



## MichaelJ (10 Nov 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> Leonhard Baldner  (1612 – 1694) was one of the early pioneers of glass aquariums.
> Samuel Pepys recorded, on 28th May 1665, being shown "fishes kept in a glass of water" - which people usually assume were goldfish, although he described them as "finely marked they are, being foreign" and some suggest that they could have been Paradise Fish as he noted the markings rather than just the colour.
> Pepys


Good point!  and it shouldn't be a surprise if someone put fishes in a glass-sided see-through container even way before that.


----------



## aec34 (11 Nov 2021)

tiger15 said:


> There is no biology without evolution,


I see what you mean here - Our science is different to Their science - but Aristotle and others had a bloody good go at comparative anatomy back in the fourth century BC. 
There’s a really good book on this by Leroi called ‘The Lagoon’ if anyone is interested.


----------



## jaypeecee (12 Nov 2021)

Hi Folks,

Perhaps the biggest problem with the aquariumscience website is the manner in which the author presents himself/herself - not so much the content? I often find myself agreeing with those sections of the website in which I have knowledge and/or experience.

JPC


----------



## John q (12 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps the biggest problem with the aquariumscience website is the manner in which the author presents himself/herself


It's a he, he has lots of fish keeping knowledge, more than I will  ever have.
Sadly his scientific mind looks for answers before the questions are asked.

No need to out him, we all deserve a little privacy. 🤫


----------



## jaypeecee (12 Nov 2021)

John q said:


> Sadly his scientific mind looks for answers before the questions are asked.


Hi @John q 

In the world of science, that's one way to stay ahead. It's not always possible, of course. As a (retired) scientist myself, I've found this approach to be a distinct advantage.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (13 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps the biggest problem with the aquariumscience website is the manner in which the author presents himself/herself - not so much the content?


Yes JPC, I think that is a significant part of it for me. Assuming he _might _be right, the way he present his advice and rush in with conclusions without giving any hints of background analysis on how he reached those conclusions is just not very compelling for me and very unscientific... which is another fault of his; invoking the concept of science when there are almost zero adherence to the scientific method (which is a high bar to begin with in this hobby). His single-minded, completely unnuanced - black or white -  and overbearing attitude is just not worth spending time on IMO - I much rather spend time on listening to - and propagating advice that have worked for me and so many others around here.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Onoma1 (14 Nov 2021)

Fascinating discussion.

Given, the paucity of research on the topic of planted aquaria we tend to look outside academia to ourselves as hobbyist to produce knowledge.

The conundrum that we are left with is who do we trust to generate knowledge, the digital mob unrestrained and without editorship (see Nicholas Carr The Shallow's or Cass Sunstein's new book Liars) or the experts?

I would suggest that this forum provides a moderated place in which experts provide understanding based on experience in the form of gentle suggestions, tinged with an element of doubt, often humor, and a willingness to be proved wrong. We don't provide The Truth but instead we seek to understand.

This is, more preferable to those who link science to truth and provide it via websites declaring theirs the one and only way (supported by a few plausible 'facts'.

To quote the late great Terry Pratchet: The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it. 

I think  there is also a misunderstanding in terms of the process of developing scientific knowledge.

In my humble opinion, 'science' is a process of learning how much we don't know while balancing precariously on the odd hypothesis that hasn't (yet) been disproved or rendered irrelevant.

The problem with the scientific webd is, therefore, both ontological and epistemological. 

PS The standing on the shoulders of giants quote is widely misunderstood. It was intended as an insult leveled at Robert Hooke who was somewhat shorter than Newton.


----------



## MichaelJ (14 Nov 2021)

Onoma1 said:


> PS The standing on the shoulders of giants quote is widely misunderstood. It was intended as an insult leveled at Robert Hooke who was somewhat shorter than Newton.


Well, I can believe that for sure, because those guys (Hooke and Newton) were up each other's noses back in the day.  Hooke generally deserves more credit on the gravity bit than is given to him.
In any event, I believe the point is, that no one make great discoveries in a vacuum or isolation - all advances are build on or inspired by prior accomplishments - such as Galileo in Newtons case.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Onoma1 (15 Nov 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> In any event, I believe the point is, that no one make great discoveries in a vacuum or isolation - all advances are build on or inspired by prior accomplishments - such as Galileo in Newtons case.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



While I agree that science does not progress in isolation I would argue that many of the paradigmatic shifts in scientific knowledge were (in their very nature) built in opposition to orthodox scientific knowledge. 

As another of my heros stated:

Progress isn't achieved by preachers or guardians of morality, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and sceptics (Stephen Fry).

Progress is found in the  counter intuitive, the hypothesis that contradicts existing knowledge, and in opposition not by conformity.


----------



## MichaelJ (15 Nov 2021)

Onoma1 said:


> While I agree that science does not progress in isolation I would argue that many of the paradigmatic shifts in scientific knowledge were (in their very nature) built in opposition to orthodox scientific knowledge.
> 
> As another of my heros stated:
> 
> ...


I totally agree. The General Theory is a good example.... And yet, Einstein's scientific hero's were Maxwell, Faraday and Newton... Doubtful he could have made such great strides without building on the works of those greats. And of course, his collaboration with Lorentz, another great that is often overlooked outside the scientific community.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Hi Folks,

A few minutes ago, I discovered that the person behind the website, _Aquarium Science_ has revealed his identity. On the introductory Home Page, it now reads:

"The author, David Bogert, is a degreed chemist, something which is useful only in the sections on chemicals like conditioners and fertilizers. He has some 43 patents, largely in the field of medical devices, which only helps with some DIY designs. But he has also worked for much of his life as a research scientist doing doing literature searches, data analysis, statistics and a little understood field called “design of experiments”.  This experience is very applicable to *ALL* of the fish keeping science".

Of course, some/many of you may already be aware of this but just in case...

Here ya go...






						Aquarium Science – The Science of Aquariums
					

The science of aquariums without the profit driven marketing hype.




					aquariumscience.org
				




JPC


----------

