Mature Water

[Curiosity101]

Hmm,even things "proven beyond doubt" can actually turn out to wrong!

Hence why it is a fair point in response to science as a whole. But in this case it cannot be applied. We can study ever section of the nitrogen cycle at sooo many levels. It just isn't something that can be disproved or further explained. There are no 'gray areas' or things which 'don't quite make sense'.

 

[Miss Dib Dabs]

^Whilst I understand your arguement regarding mature water I am having difficulty in your absolute conviction as to there being no way that it couldn't be wrong. Science is always making mistakes, updating previous ideas and improving research methods. It always has something more to study in every field and that includes this one. It may prove that tank water should be changed massively as often as possible, or decide that we should avoid any large changes altogether....who knows. Just look at the new discoveries and ideas that have been proven right or wrong in the last 50 years. Never say never is my motto.
In the case of water, 'mature water' does exist. It just isn't the same as mature filter media etc. It does change the params compared to those in the tap and a large change will have a detrimental effect (I've had it happen). Smaller regular changes is healthy and helps ensure tank water will not alter from the tap water by much. It also stops nitrate building up beyond tap levels.
If you look at the definition of mature in the dictionary it says to grow or age, which is exactly what the water does if it's in the tank for a period of time....ageing! And, as Mikaila suggests, 'grows' algae! *Sillymoment*
P.

 

[Curiosity101]

^Whilst I understand your arguement regarding mature water I am having difficulty in your absolute conviction as to there being no way that it couldn't be wrong. Science is always making mistakes, updating previous ideas and improving research methods. It always has something more to study in every field and that includes this one. It may prove that tank water should be changed massively as often as possible, or decide that we should avoid any large changes altogether....who knows. Just look at the new discoveries and ideas that have been proven right or wrong in the last 50 years. Never say never is my motto.

But do you/have you studied any higher level science? Cause if you had you'd know that although this is true on some levels... there ARE occasions when we can say with 100% certainty that something is how it is. The nitrogen cycle, and the bacteria which do it are one of these certainties.

It's like you saying that some day someone could just say... oh actually bacteria aren't physically how we said they were... even though we've looked at every single physical aspect and tested them from every possible angle (as there are only so many angles to test).
If you study science you quickly see that certain things do change and evolve... but there are some fundamentals that don't. Because they've been questioned and questioned and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Edit: What could feasibly happen is that the 5 kingdoms could one day increase to 6 or something because a 'bacteria like organism' is found. Or some bacteria can be reclassified into different groups and such. But fundamentals are fundamentals.

 

[Miss Dib Dabs]

Are you saying that you have studied higher level science?
P.

 

[Curiosity101]

I'm saying I'm doing a university degree in genetics and have access to alot of resource material aswell as professors. And that aswell as doing my degree do various bits of background reading, specifically with regards to the fact that I keep fish and like to know that what I'm saying is scientifically accurate.

 

[Miss Dib Dabs]

I also am a researcher, although in a very different field. I study psychology and plan on going for a master in child psychology after my current degree. I also take pleasure on finding out as much as I can about the areas I am interested in and have access to a vast number of libraries of academic writing. Having read quite alot of theorists work, I can say confidently that it is rare that any two theories are ever entirely the same. There are always differences, whether through interpretation of data, personal experience or a simple difference in opinion. I remain skeptical in regards to any information being 100% accurate in any field due to the changes of opinion over decades of research, whether technology is involved or not.
Whilst I respect your opinion in this aspect, I wil continue to believe that as we advance as a race and through technology, we will continue to discover new and unexpected things (lovely, academic word that) which will impact our thinking and beliefs.
P.

 

[Curiosity101]

In psychology it is often theory though. And from a physchology background I can understand why you would be so skeptical of my claims that anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Totally off topic here but I remember the whole of last year I was the anomaly for any psychology student that needed an anomolous result. They came by with the 'How many random words can you rember test'. I sure you know the one... you get x amount of time then have a distraction for 10 mins then you recall.
I can do up to 40 and often in order.
They did other projects too but that was the one that will always stick out lol.

For the record...

we will continue to discover new and unexpected things (lovely, academic word that) which will impact our thinking and beliefs.

^^ That, I agree with. But even though you find it hard to believe, there honestly are fundamentals that wont change. I can think of quite a few examples... behaviour of water for example, how fertilisation happens, how gametes are formed, how dna is made up of genes, how the human body converts and uses energy (no one is saying they necessarily have the full picture, but what they do say is that what they do teach is proven beyond any reasonable doubt) and I would say 'How photosynthesis happens'. But there are too many variables and plants are to complex for anyone to say for certain yet that they've discovered everything.
The current thinking is that they probably have the full picture as the last grey spot was explained a few years back. But they're keeping it as 'This is what we believe is the full story of photosynthesis atm'...

 

[Miss Dib Dabs]

Lol, this has been an interesting debate (we don't get much opportunity to debate at uni sadly). My skepticism remains intact however and you sound like an interesting study yourself.
I personally despise over-theorising especially when it is little based in fact, but it is the curse of psychologists to have to endure it through university. Am currently writing (literally by hand) theoretical notes (although based in fact) for a long overdue assignment (extension due to my daughter having an emergency op). My hand hurts.
Regarding the water issue, without extensive and irrefutable evidence before me, I will continue to find favour with my arguement, but then if we all ought thought the same thing, scientists wouldn't continue to probe and extend on findings through history! And then where would we be. 100 years ago they thought they knew a great deal that has since been refuted and rejected so I believe that, whether we say we have conclusive evidence that this is the way things are and they don't basically alter from this concept, our current thinking will be looked back upon as primitive and limited 50 or 100 years down the line. let's hope we're both alive long enough to see which of us is right! Although I may be a tad on the wrinkly side by then.
P.
P.S:To quote M.I.B 'Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.'

 

[Curiosity101]

But would you dispute that gravity exists?

Would you dispute the earth is round?

Would you dispute that our moon orbits the earth and that our solar system orbits the sun?

There are some things that are certainty... and unless you've studied biology at degree level (and particularly as you study psychology) I can see why you're skeptical.

 

[Miss Dib Dabs]

This could be an arguement that needs to take place in a pub with a drink. I could go all existential but I have to go out in a few minutes.
I do not dispute the presence of all those things, merely our understanding of them and that there may be a lot more to them than we think. After all, what really is gravity? We 'know' it is a weak force that holds us to this planet and also the force that keeps us in orbit around other objects...in our case, the sun and that around the universe itself. We 'know' it is one of the weakest forces in the entirety of the universe but we don't really know what causes it to exist, nor why it is so weak. I would love exploring the universe in greater depth but really cannot cope with more than one subject at a time at degree level. My brain is particularly singular in this aspect, not a multi-tasker in academic pursuits.
Anyway, now I'm gonna be late. Possibly. And that drink is calling me.
P.

 

[raptorrex]

In psychology it is often theory though. And from a physchology background I can understand why you would be so skeptical of my claims that anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Psychiatrist work in Unproven theory. indeed there is no real evidence its a science at all. talking to a Geneticist and a Psychiatrist, i know the one who, i know, is taking facts.

as for mature water. if you do regular water changes. how can it mature. Tanks mature, water gets changed. suggesting that tanks suffering from "old tank syndrome", have, somehow, better water than those which are regularly change. well that belongs to past decade's.

as always, much sense talked by Curiosity101.

 

[BethK]

psychology is still a science........human science and yes, it may well all be theory based but some things have been proven. I strongly believe that a person is determined 50/50 on genetics and home...............but that is a whole other subject.

 

[ian]

Psychiatrist work in Unproven theory.

^^^a lol statement.

Just because Psychiatry tend to use qualitative research, you cannot rubbish it. Two massive different approaches to life, quantative isn't always right either.

 

[BethK]

Psychiatrist work in Unproven theory.

^^^a lol statement.

Just because Psychiatry tend to use qualitative research, you cannot rubbish it. Two massive different approaches to life, quantative isn't always right either.

I know that <<<psychology student here

 

[ian]

That was the good thing about the nursing degree, we were tought to use both angles as medicine uses quantative and nursing uses both aspects of research and both are as valid as each other.