I donāt often start a thread on any aquaria related forum Iāve used over the years. I am starting this thread to discuss a rather bizarre aquarium website. I hope everyone will skim through its contents (link below) and provide their feedback here. Truly a one of a kind, not in a good way.
I stumbled upon a website, aquariumscience.org,
that claims to provide scientifically proven facts pertaining to nearly all facets of the freshwater hobby. Eschewing parroted information on forums or anecdotal data, everything the author claims to write about is based on āfactsā with no commercial incentive to lead you to believe otherwise. 17 different chapters and over 300 articles ranging from nutrition, diseases, filter medias, commercial additives and everything in between. As somebody who really believes in using the scientific method to better understand reef aquaria, as many are doing nowadays, somebody applying the same methodology to freshwater aquaria would be totally refreshing. Sounds great, right? A little closer inspection into it and it clear this is a whole mess of a website disguised as āfactsā. I concede it could be wildly easy for even an advanced hobbyist to fall smitten with this website. It surely has all the lingo, āmyth bustingā qualities and relatively intelligent discussion that could lead one to believe itās content. There are even some examples that are in fact, true, but these are very few and far between and kinda keep you on your toes. In a nutshell, itās VERY well disguised.
Firstly, the author claims to be a chemist and expert of data analysis with many great accolades but doesnāt provide a C.V. for personal reasons. Unusual, but not fully discreditable. With very few seemingly legitimate exceptions, there are almost zero sources cited for the ādataā he claims to use. The very basis of scientific writing is to cite appropriately, for an author claiming to only use āfactsā this is diametrically opposite to what is considered āfactsā based on the scientific method. He frequently lists āstudies or testsā with no citations, but has plenty of graphs, literature and ādataā that donāt hold an ounce of credibility. He literally made the graphs on his own and claims they come from a study. Many points he claims to prove, I, or many other hobbyists, could disprove with a fair amount of research. I could go on and on and I wonāt for the sake of reading this post. Again, I encourage everyone to skim through the website and form their own opinions.
AquariumScience is really bizarre and I strongly get the suspicion that the author might be a disgruntled SeaChem employee, or rather, former employee. There was an awful lot of time and work that went into this website, making it all the stranger.
I stumbled upon a website, aquariumscience.org,
that claims to provide scientifically proven facts pertaining to nearly all facets of the freshwater hobby. Eschewing parroted information on forums or anecdotal data, everything the author claims to write about is based on āfactsā with no commercial incentive to lead you to believe otherwise. 17 different chapters and over 300 articles ranging from nutrition, diseases, filter medias, commercial additives and everything in between. As somebody who really believes in using the scientific method to better understand reef aquaria, as many are doing nowadays, somebody applying the same methodology to freshwater aquaria would be totally refreshing. Sounds great, right? A little closer inspection into it and it clear this is a whole mess of a website disguised as āfactsā. I concede it could be wildly easy for even an advanced hobbyist to fall smitten with this website. It surely has all the lingo, āmyth bustingā qualities and relatively intelligent discussion that could lead one to believe itās content. There are even some examples that are in fact, true, but these are very few and far between and kinda keep you on your toes. In a nutshell, itās VERY well disguised.
Firstly, the author claims to be a chemist and expert of data analysis with many great accolades but doesnāt provide a C.V. for personal reasons. Unusual, but not fully discreditable. With very few seemingly legitimate exceptions, there are almost zero sources cited for the ādataā he claims to use. The very basis of scientific writing is to cite appropriately, for an author claiming to only use āfactsā this is diametrically opposite to what is considered āfactsā based on the scientific method. He frequently lists āstudies or testsā with no citations, but has plenty of graphs, literature and ādataā that donāt hold an ounce of credibility. He literally made the graphs on his own and claims they come from a study. Many points he claims to prove, I, or many other hobbyists, could disprove with a fair amount of research. I could go on and on and I wonāt for the sake of reading this post. Again, I encourage everyone to skim through the website and form their own opinions.
AquariumScience is really bizarre and I strongly get the suspicion that the author might be a disgruntled SeaChem employee, or rather, former employee. There was an awful lot of time and work that went into this website, making it all the stranger.
Last edited:
!!!! Cloudy water? Brown stuff on the gravel? Ignore it? No wonder the author doesn't want to share details because he knows he would be bombarded with fish people from everywhere
