Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnH
Back when I worked as a research engineer we often followed the flow when we did testing - we would be looking for an answer to one question, but the testing pointed in a different direction, so we were soon off on a different quest. That is an effective technique if you have the time, money and equipment to do that. But keeping an open mind is always the most important part. And, accepting that you were wrong about something is another important part.
That latter point trips up even professional researchers. We get wedded to our great ideas and it is hard to "annul" the marriage when it is appropriate to do so. The natural tendency is to adjust our theory, do more testing, fudge some results, get mad at someone, but only at the very end actually accept that we were wrong.
|
Yes, but you must give up even the best model/theory if you falsify it.
I think that is more interesting. When I realize something does not work, or is wrong, then it's a good thing.
Then I know I cannot induce algae with PO4, Fe, NO3 etc.........
I still do not know what induces all algae, or every possible cause for algae, but I know what something is not along the way. I have some notions about what might cause algae, but there are always possibilities and likelihoods that there may be multiple causes...........
A typical test will involve a null and an alternative statement:
Ho: that
there is a difference in algae blooms, presence/inducement at 0.2ppm, 1ppm, or 2 ppm of PO4.
Ha: that
there is no difference in algae blooms, presence/inducement at 0.2ppm, 1ppm, or 2 ppm of PO4.
You can test the PO4 levels, and the algae presence.
These are very specific statements and one of them cannot be true.
I used Paul Sears' notion about algae and PO4 to test.
My alternative hypothesis was that there is no difference.
The questions posed are not geared at who is right or wrong, it's gears only at the set of questions.
Another researcher might repeat it and find that there is a significant difference and accept the Ho/null.
However, did they control for NH4, fish load, CO2, light, current, plant species type, general biomass in the tank etc?
More often than not, the answer is no, they did not.
Scale and time for the responses to occur also play roles.
There are so many things we do not think of and overlook.
And when you have considered many of these things and account for them, ask others about them, acknowledge them, then it shows you have done your homework.
If not, well............