MichaelJ
Member
Just so we all know what @sparkyweasel is talking about: - Hey, did they inject CO2 into plant-less tanks with a bike pump back then?
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
-
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
Diana Walstad Ecology of the Planted Aquarium Now in Paperback.
- Thread starter Tim Harrison
- Start date
Just so we all know what @sparkyweasel is talking about: - Hey, did they inject CO2 into plant-less tanks with a bike pump back then?
Cheers,
Michael
John q
Member
Time for me to pitch in I think, I have a masters degree in Ecology and Conservation Biology, and I just started my PhD studies (mainly concerning riparian plants). Would that qualify me as a scientist (possibly), and would it mean that I give better advice than someone who just has a lot of informal experience keeping aquatic plants (no way). I'm just a guy who reads a lot, takes everything with a pinch of salt, and try to gain some knowledge about what might happen in certain situations. Zozo sums it up pretty well:A lot of it I can't peer qualify as I do not have a science degree in bio chemistry, biology or aquatic horticulture and neither do anyone that frequently posts here as far as I know.
That works for scientific articles where your readers are others involved with science who understands what "probably" means, but if your writing for the general public I don't think it would sell that many books if you constantly sound unsure about your argument. There is of course the problem of working with biology too, in that the only governing "rule" is evolution, basically "Life, uh, finds a way" (Jeff Goldblum), or "life lives everywhere that life can. Where life can't, this takes a little longer" (Terry Pratchett).
Last edited by a moderator:
zozo
Member
It's a beautiful word that could indeed be a tricky one as well, especially for international users who need to translate it then it's usually translated with a synonym that comes closest but still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Probably comes from Latin "probā(re)" (To try To, Test) and it has both Probe and Prove in it. The suffix 'ly' in the adverb. says it looks or feels like it but it is or might not be. Similar to soapy it feels and looks or smells like soap but it might not be.
Probe and Prove are cognates that almost mean the same thing, probe is 'feel, smell, see, test it' and prove is the conclusion of the result of what is probed. So it must be true and with peer review becomes logically an empirical fact. But it still could be probably.
The Dutch have a nicer word combination for it that can not be translated into one word in any other language which is "Proefondervindelijk" which means literally translated Probed(proved) and found by experience it is like'
A scientist actually doesn't need to sound specifically unsure in other words the word probe and prove is probably unsure enough already.
Funny it's not the scientist in general (With a few exceptions) but the people reading it run away with the word (dis)proof and nail it to the wall or like to chisel it into stone. Then prove changes into an opinion and opinions are never a fact and are not true or untrue not right and not wrong simply something you personally find or believe. You could be subjectively alone in this or collectively intersubjective.
Intersubjectivity can be a dangerous thing, for example, many people who are not guilty are still found guilty in court and sentenced to life in prison because all the probability speaks against them and all judges and the rest of the world hold the opinion they did it. We have a lot of proof for that as well.
Last edited:
PARAGUAY
Member
It does depend on the context of course, the surgeon used the word on discussing my brothers (alls well)recent operation, on questioning what he meant he said "in ten years of doing this operation never had a failure" That made our kid feel better(more than probably)
Hi all,
People want black and white answers, but the reality is all shades of grey.
People who don't understand this are more likely to believe Donald Trump, or the Pondguru, because they are absolutely sure about what they say, however ludicrous it is.
Cheers Darrel
I think that is the problem, scientists are generally happy to say that they don't know the answer, when they don't know the answer and to couch things in terms of probability.
People want black and white answers, but the reality is all shades of grey.
People who don't understand this are more likely to believe Donald Trump, or the Pondguru, because they are absolutely sure about what they say, however ludicrous it is.
Cheers Darrel
Last edited:
No two aquariums are the same, I somewhat feel defeated when trying to help.
I guess, for the most part outside of plant enthusiasts, it’s just do a water change, keep on top of maintenance, add some floating plants and maybe, plant some vallis. Trial and error on fish, and eventually you’ll have something that works. Add some snails, and don’t worry too much about the algae.
But the above paragraph wouldn’t fill a book 😅
I guess, for the most part outside of plant enthusiasts, it’s just do a water change, keep on top of maintenance, add some floating plants and maybe, plant some vallis. Trial and error on fish, and eventually you’ll have something that works. Add some snails, and don’t worry too much about the algae.
But the above paragraph wouldn’t fill a book 😅
mrhoyo
Member
To get somewhat back to the OP:
Is the book worth buying, especially now it's not a billion quid?
Is the book worth buying, especially now it's not a billion quid?
Interesting debate on the philosophy of science and society. The older, and not necessarily wiser, I get the more I realise there are no absolutes just opinions, even in science. And like I've mentioned above paradigms don't necessarily shift because scientists, especially those that hold a somewhat dogmatic position, suddenly see the light. Science advances one funeral at a time.
In other words, gatekeepers of the truth usually have to pop their clogs before the next generation with new ideas get a turn and science advances. As a result I find myself increasingly leaning toward the sceptical end of the spectrum and would consider myself something of an epistemological anarchist. I think it's an incredibly arrogant and dangerous assumption that only credentialled scientists are qualified to interpret the universe and make decisions on our behalf.
However, as already mentioned above, most folk want to believe science has all the answers. I guess it’s a comfort in a world gone mad, and gives them something to believe in other than religion. The irony is though that governments and corporations know this and weaponise it to further their own agendas. It’s a post truth era so why not get in on the act too.
As a result science is in danger of becoming just another ideology like religion. And it becomes more difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. For instance, as we all know this industry has more than its fair share of snake oil salesmen. But in the context of making decisions which affect society it often has far reaching and potentially disastrous consequences.
Nevertheless there is always going to be a place for the traditional reductionist and quantitative framework of science provided it is used appropriately. But equally, in a postmodern era, we also have to accept the importance of a more holistic and qualitative framework otherwise the quantitative often has no real life context, and therefore isn't particularly useful.
Is it perfect? No. But then nothing ever is, and folk should always take some responsibility for making sense of what they read.
In other words, gatekeepers of the truth usually have to pop their clogs before the next generation with new ideas get a turn and science advances. As a result I find myself increasingly leaning toward the sceptical end of the spectrum and would consider myself something of an epistemological anarchist. I think it's an incredibly arrogant and dangerous assumption that only credentialled scientists are qualified to interpret the universe and make decisions on our behalf.
However, as already mentioned above, most folk want to believe science has all the answers. I guess it’s a comfort in a world gone mad, and gives them something to believe in other than religion. The irony is though that governments and corporations know this and weaponise it to further their own agendas. It’s a post truth era so why not get in on the act too.
As a result science is in danger of becoming just another ideology like religion. And it becomes more difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. For instance, as we all know this industry has more than its fair share of snake oil salesmen. But in the context of making decisions which affect society it often has far reaching and potentially disastrous consequences.
Nevertheless there is always going to be a place for the traditional reductionist and quantitative framework of science provided it is used appropriately. But equally, in a postmodern era, we also have to accept the importance of a more holistic and qualitative framework otherwise the quantitative often has no real life context, and therefore isn't particularly useful.
That makes at least two of us then, and I'm sure there are many more. Does it make me uniquely qualified to offer folk advice here? Hell no...In actual fact my experience as a hobbyist is far more relevant in that context.
Short answer, yes. Definitely. It's as good a grounding in the ecology of the planted aquarium as you’re likely to get anywhere else in one shot.
Is it perfect? No. But then nothing ever is, and folk should always take some responsibility for making sense of what they read.
MichaelJ
Member
I tend to believe we are all small scientists of sorts with our experiments to cultivate a slice of nature in our small glass boxes - that takes curiosity - a fundamental ingredient in any scientific endeavor. Regardless of how the experiment turns out we will have gained some knowledge. The reason why things fail or succeed, thats the next level of knowledge... Many hobbyists "only" visit here to get a possible solution to a problem with their tanks... It could be a plant issue for instance; plants are not looking good - say veiny yellowing leafs.. or chloroses... so we ask for tank info, water parameters, a water report etc... Ok, turns out the hobbyists tap water contains very little Magnesium... so we advice the hobbyists to add some Magnesium and things improve. I think by far the most are just fine with that and move on enjoying their re-invigorated plants. And that is, in my opinion, just perfect, but some sticks around and asks questions to understand their experience a little further; ok, so what is this Magnesium business, why do plants need magnesium? turns out Magnesium act as a Phosphorus carrier within the plants and Mg is a critical part of chlorophyll... which provide the underlying mechanics of photosynthesis... Ok, perfect thats enough, moving on! Very, very few wants to go even further than this, but some will: Oh Phosphorus? whats the purpose of that? turns out phosphorous is critical for cell formation and division etc... fair enough, what if we have too much/little Phosphorus and how does it interact with other nutrients.... and on and on... at this stage, especially at the cause and effect level, things starts to get a bit more than fuzzy and where I would love a bit more participation from people such as domain scientists or closely related that can explain things in a way that makes it understandable and relevant to our hobby, but we also have to keep in mind that only a small fraction of visitors / members can summon the interest and rightfully feel they need to care about acquiring that level of knowledge. We do have really good people around here with a strong scientific inclination, I just wish we had a few more.
I can't speak to the Pondguru, as don't know him, but I know the other guy... the most terrifying thing about extraordinary psychopathic narcissists is that they can make people believe in, and do just about anything... bone chilling I'd say...
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi all,
I'd agree with @_Maq_ that it isn't perfect, but for me it's insights far outweigh its limitations. <"Walstad revises"> has some discussion.
Cheers Darrel
My opinion is that it is well worth buying.
I'd agree with @_Maq_ that it isn't perfect, but for me it's insights far outweigh its limitations. <"Walstad revises"> has some discussion.
Cheers Darrel
Last edited:
PARAGUAY
Member
I will be buying after losing my Kindle one, well worth at that price IMO
JohnCooke
Member
The website for Bruce plants (Buceplants.com) has an interesting review of Diana Walstad's book. Actually, it's less of a review, and more of a guide to the book. Nonetheless, if you're new to planted tanks, and not necessarily keen on launching into a high-tech approach, then it's an informative article. It's on their blog.
PARAGUAY
Member
A lot of books in aquarium and plants stand the "test of time" with just the change of classification ,genus altered
There's more than one way to skin the cat - Walstad's approach is unique; definitely worth a read. I noticed there's not much strictly scientific literature about aquarium plants - perhaps because there isn't much money in the field. I tend to look at rice instead, there are tons of sources out there... I appreciate rice is only semi aquatic, but I'm only semi-serious so the info is good enough for me 😄
