For all u Tanganyika fans

[DiscusKid]

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=2834

[cichlid1409]

how do they know what the surface water temp was 1500 years ago?

[newb]

studies like this make science look stupid...there is NO way for SURE to know what the temp was 1500 years ago. They can only guess.

[Darbex]

Its science they can make up things and call it fact

[geoff_tropheus]

poor fishes!!! :(

[TonyO]

studies like this make science look stupid...there is NO way for SURE to know what the temp was 1500 years ago. They can only guess.

Its science they can make up things and call it fact

As someone who has worked as a researcher in a post-graduate biological sciences program before leaving early to work full-time, I feel like I need to expound on some of these ideas.

Can you tell 100%? No. That's why statistics are used, with a confidence interval used as a convention for determining "significance," why extensive literature searches are done (sometimes 1,000s of pages on one detail), why usually there are a series of experiments, and why it's peer-reviewed. Things aren't "made up," but evidence is collected to determine the best current possible explanation. Science is ever changing. It's dynamic. If competing data comes to light, then everything shifts, and oftentimes, further experiments result from that to strengthen one side or discover a different, more explanative technique. Studies like this don't make science look stupid, it hopefully furthers current opinion, both from a pro and con standpoint. They're not blind "guesses," but explanations made with the most current information available by people that are experts in the field.

Have you read the actual journal article with methods and stats and any relevant corresponding literature? If not, you should before dismissing it as hokum. A lot more goes into this research than most people actually realize, and data collection is often painstakingly and meticulously kept.

If you have read it, then why does it not hold up? What better methods do you suggest for getting better results? Which statistical methods do you suggest?

I prefer to read the papers and make my own conclusions, often after having read other relevant papers and/or checking on the techniques themselves. I have the experience (10 years studying science), the analytical skills, and access to materials and information that allows me to do just that, but it is time-consuming. I don't always agree with the conclusions, but I have specific reasons why, and what I think could be done to improve and expand on the research before making a more complete conclusion.

[Mzungu]

Well said, TonyO!

Since you brought it up, I actually searched for that article yesterday for a little over 30 minutes, and couldn't find it anywhere for free. Do you happen to have the resources at your disposal to point those of us interested in reading it in the right direction?

I totally agree with you. If something like this is put out there, I ALWAYS try to read any article 'summarized,' and THEN form an opinion. I'm guessing since it's so new, though, it's not as available to us non-professionals as other, older articles.

Thanks for any help!

[TonyO]

I want to reiterate that I'm not intending to come across as this "enlightened" person, I'm just speaking from a different, first-hand perspective. I really do encourage people to read things and come to their own logical conclusions for the purposes of putting together a concise, cogent opinion that can be openly discussed in a civil manner. If there's a question on a technique or a statistical method, it doesn't hurt to ask someone who knows to explain it. I have little experience in business economics (outside of the basics), for example, so I have to ask my friends when something isn't making sense to me.

If you can't find it on-line in .pdf format. . . which I couldn't either, I try one of a few things.

I can sometimes go to the local university to get these articles. If they have it available, I can get it there for the cost it takes to make copies. Sometimes, they'll let you do Interlibrary Loan for a fee (the library contacts another library in the system to have the article printed for you). I've contacted authors to get a copy. Sometimes, you can specifically order it from the journal for a fee. It's increasingly difficult here because I'm no longer a student, and the library doesn't have as many journals available as some others, so the cost has skyrocketed, and I've had to pick and choose which topics I'm most interested in. I've thrown out/recycled a lot of papers this past week on lungfish, Viperidae, non-native ants, plant semiochemicals, aphid population dynamics, Monarch butterflies, etc. So much effort, but I don't want to have to move it all!

I'm interested to see if I will be able to get access to this and other journals at one of the Texas schools, since I'll be working in a histology lab in Houston. I'd like to keep updated on the various new techniques.

[cichlid1409]

searched my schools library and they don't have it,but they may not receive that journal, IDK.

[Darbex]

My comment was partly out of jest. Although I do go back to the issue that so many times scientific community proselytize something as fact when it is or will be overturned because the evidence doesnt support it. I always point out the "fact" of black hole when they are all theories because prior to 10yrs ago they didnt exist. Until someone discovered that they were what caused some galaxies to have such large mass that cannot be explained by the stars and planets in it. But they only existed in large galaxies. Until recently they were discovered to be in smaller galaxies and our Milky Way even has one.