MichaelJ
Member
He was dabbling in alchemy ... so there is that.If only Newton had a planted aquarium
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
"Aquarium Science" has some new planted tank articles
- Thread starter dw1305
- Start date
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.If only Newton had a planted aquarium
MichaelJ
Member
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
Last edited:
PARAGUAY
Member
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 | Setup, Fish & Supplies | Britannica
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 fish
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
Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 2,963
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
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
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
Member
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. 🤫
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
Member
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
Last edited:
Onoma1
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
Last edited:
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...
aquariumscience.org
JPC
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
