I listed three of the logical fallacies you used: ... appeal to authority, changing subjects and misleading conclusions. Also, "Africa" is never a cause of "insufficient food" while small tank size is a direct cause of poor water quality including temperature and chemical instability as well as inability to proscess wastes quickly enough.
Aquarium fish size
- Thread starter sidewinder
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
sidewinder
Well-known member
Orin,
Appeal to authority? I stated my experience level. 40 years of experience raising and breeding fish does give someone a certain level of authority in what they say.
I am not the one that changed the subject. I am the one that has steadfastly focused on the real cause of stunting which is NOT tank size.
For the 7000th time, poor water quality (and poor food quality) are what cause stunting. Tank size is NOT a direct cause. It is not any harder to keep high water quality in a small tank that is appropriately stocked and filtered than it is in a large tank that is appropriately stocked and filtered. Inexperienced aquarists do tend to put too many fish in small tanks. Inexperienced aquarists are much more likely to overfeed their fish. Inexperienced aquarists do not tend to get large tanks. Inexperienced aquarists are much more likely to have tanks with insufficient filtering. Inexperienced aquarists are much more likely to have tanks with poor water quality. So you do see more water quality issues with small tanks. But it is not the small tank that causes the problem! It is the aquarist!!!
The smaller tanks I have used to house breeding pairs of cichlids have never been an issue. Even when I had more fish inches per gallon than I did in my 200 gallon tank. Proper filtering, not over feeding, and consistent water changes maintained water quality just as well as the big tank. The smaller tanks were actually easier because the water changes were easier and faster.
Scott
Last edited by a moderator:
Morpheus uk
Well-known member
Omfg, what ever happened to yes or know answers, seems mantidforum has exploded into replies with the contents of a book 
Does anyone even remember what the heck the original question was :lol:
Does anyone even remember what the heck the original question was :lol:
sidewinder
Well-known member
Morpheus uk,Omfg, what ever happened to yes or know answers, seems mantidforum has exploded into replies with the contents of a book
The original question was does tank size determine how big a fish can get [relative to its genetic potential]? The simple answer to that question is "no". The correct answer is water and food quality determine how big a fish can get [relative to its genetic potential].
Orin is clouding the issue by saying that small tank size is a direct cause of poor water quality thus is a direct cause of stunted growth.
In other words, he is saying that:
Small tank = poor water quality = stunted growth
Which means:
Small tank = stunted growth
That is flawed logic. A small tank does not mean poor water quality. It CAN mean that, but a properly maintained small tank will have good water quality.
Scott
Please do a little research on logical fallacies and restate your position without using them.
sidewinder
Well-known member
Mods can delete.....
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why I keep reading this thread.... :wacko:
sidewinder
Well-known member
Orin,
Is that all you have? Please tell me you have more!
Your argument is an "inductive fallacy". Maybe you should do some research on what that is. I did it for you. Look here at Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere's web site:
http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/index.htm
Here is some more information for you from that web site (http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/confusingce.htm):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusing Cause and Effect
Also Known as: Questionable Cause, Reversing Causation
Description:
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
1) A and B regularly occur together.
2) Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there not be, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B) . The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The views expressed are not necessarily those of Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere.
There it is, in black and white...
Scott
Is that all you have? Please tell me you have more!
Your argument is an "inductive fallacy". Maybe you should do some research on what that is. I did it for you. Look here at Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere's web site:
http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/index.htm
Here is some more information for you from that web site (http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/confusingce.htm):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusing Cause and Effect
Also Known as: Questionable Cause, Reversing Causation
Description:
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
1) A and B regularly occur together.
2) Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there not be, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B) . The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The views expressed are not necessarily those of Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere.
There it is, in black and white...
Scott
Last edited by a moderator:
According to your quote below the logic being used is A -> B and B -> C so A -> C. That's not even remotely close to the inductive fallacy you copy and can't properly apply. You can't find an [SIZE=14pt]applicable[/SIZE] inductive fallacy because there isn't one.
sidewinder
Well-known member
Orin,
You seem to think that because small tanks (A) and poor water quality ( B) regularly occur together that A is the cause of B. That is an inductive fallacy.
Scott
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you furiously pounding a square peg into a round hole because you really can't understand the definition or just to be silly?
sidewinder
Well-known member
Orin,
I am not furiously doing anything.
If you still say that small tanks cause stunted growth, your argument is a fallacy. Because small tanks do not cause stunting. As I have stated numerous times, stunting is caused by poor water quality and poor food quality. Just because you often see poor water quality in small tanks does not mean small tanks cause poor water quality.
Do you still say that small tanks cause stunted growth?
Scott
I am not furiously doing anything.
If you still say that small tanks cause stunted growth, your argument is a fallacy. Because small tanks do not cause stunting. As I have stated numerous times, stunting is caused by poor water quality and poor food quality. Just because you often see poor water quality in small tanks does not mean small tanks cause poor water quality.
Do you still say that small tanks cause stunted growth?
Scott
Last edited by a moderator:
According to your own theory it can't fit the inductive fallacy you're trying to warp to your needs.
I don't agree with your theory for many reasons including the stunted peacocks I mentioned were at a huge facilty maintained by the same expert aquarist, the only difference from all the other cichlids was the tank.
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
Greetings Orin, Salomonis!
What fun! I don't know about all that logic stuff, I've never even heard of an undistributed middle term, but I was a pretty successful tropical fish keeper, so perhaps this will help.
In March of this year, I attended a wedding here in Yuma, with an outdoor wedding reception. Each table was decorated with a tiny rectangular jar, 11.5cm tall with a surface area of 72sq cm (7.5cm x9.5cm), containing a single "industrial grade" betta. The temperature drops pretty drastically at night in March, so I gathered up the jars, put them in the kitchen and distributed them to any passing kid that I could snag.
I took one pathetic critter home, named him "Pla" (Thai for "Siamese Fighting Fish") and stuck him on top of the refrigerator. Since he was an anabantid, I didn't worry about the tiny surface area, but I fed him on frozen baby brine shrimp and live fruit flies and gave him a complete water change twice a day, using "aged water" from a gallon jug.
Even with a mirror and regular encouragement in Thai, he was never a happy fish, and he finally succumbed a few days before Christmas. Under proper conditions, he should have been matable up until about 18 mos, so his was an untimely death.
He was adequately fed on a balanced diet, his water quality was excellent, so I wondered why he was so short lived. It occurred to me in retrospect that he was probably locally raised and did not understand Thai, and of course, I should have kept him in a much larger jar.
What fun! I don't know about all that logic stuff, I've never even heard of an undistributed middle term, but I was a pretty successful tropical fish keeper, so perhaps this will help.
In March of this year, I attended a wedding here in Yuma, with an outdoor wedding reception. Each table was decorated with a tiny rectangular jar, 11.5cm tall with a surface area of 72sq cm (7.5cm x9.5cm), containing a single "industrial grade" betta. The temperature drops pretty drastically at night in March, so I gathered up the jars, put them in the kitchen and distributed them to any passing kid that I could snag.
I took one pathetic critter home, named him "Pla" (Thai for "Siamese Fighting Fish") and stuck him on top of the refrigerator. Since he was an anabantid, I didn't worry about the tiny surface area, but I fed him on frozen baby brine shrimp and live fruit flies and gave him a complete water change twice a day, using "aged water" from a gallon jug.
Even with a mirror and regular encouragement in Thai, he was never a happy fish, and he finally succumbed a few days before Christmas. Under proper conditions, he should have been matable up until about 18 mos, so his was an untimely death.
He was adequately fed on a balanced diet, his water quality was excellent, so I wondered why he was so short lived. It occurred to me in retrospect that he was probably locally raised and did not understand Thai, and of course, I should have kept him in a much larger jar.
