I never intended to create a method, a philosophy, or a formal system of ideas. I was simply trying to understand questions that felt unfinished.
- Why did the fish die?
- Why did the treatment fail?
- Why can similar symptoms lead to completely different conclusions?
- Why do some explanations sound convincing while failing to explain the underlying mechanism?
- Why are certain questions considered settled when nobody can confidently explain the details?
Over time, I noticed that these problems were not unique to fish pathology. They appear in science, engineering, medicine, education, management, and everyday life. Very often, the disagreement is not about facts but about the way people think. Not about what is known, but about how conclusions are reached.
Gradually, a set of principles emerged—principles that I kept applying while working with aquatic animals, analyzing data, reading scientific literature, and building explanations. That collection of principles eventually became known as the Fossa Method.
I. Observation
1. Start with observation, not explanation
The most common mistake is to explain a phenomenon before it has been properly described.
First ask:
- What happened?
- What was observed?
- What was measured?
- What was recorded?
Only then ask:
- Why did it happen?
2. Do not confuse description with cause
A description is not an explanation.
Phrases such as:
- bacterial outbreak;
- stress;
- weakened immunity;
- vitamin deficiency;
often replace uncertainty with familiar words.
The real question is:
What mechanism produced the observed result?
II. Constraints
3. Every system has constraints
Constraints cannot be eliminated.
They can only be redistributed.
Every solution creates new limitations.
Therefore the important question is:
Which constraint are we trying to change, and what will appear in its place?
4. Every model has boundaries
There are no universal solutions.
No treatment works everywhere.
No diagnostic sign applies to every situation.
No method remains valid under all conditions.
The question is not:
Does the model work?
The better question is:
Where does the model stop working?
III. Understanding
5. Simplicity should be the result of understanding
Simplification is useful.
Oversimplification is dangerous.
A good explanation:
- removes unnecessary details;
- preserves what matters;
- reveals the mechanism.
A bad explanation removes the mechanism itself.
6. Demystify knowledge
Complex terminology does not automatically create deep understanding.
Terminology exists for precision, not authority.
Knowledge should become more accessible, not more mysterious.
7. Complexity cannot always be removed
Some things are genuinely complex.
If the system is complex, the explanation may also need to be complex.
Complexity is not the problem.
Pretending complexity does not exist is.
IV. Inquiry
8. Look for contradictions
Confirmations are useful.
Contradictions are often more interesting.
Observations that do not fit the current model are frequently the ones that move understanding forward.
9. Authority does not replace mechanism
Position is not evidence.
Experience is not evidence.
Publication count is not evidence.
If the mechanism cannot be explained, authority alone does not make the explanation correct.
10. Respect the object of study
A fish is not merely a data point.
A treatment is not a ritual.
A necropsy is not a formality.
Every observation contains information.
The goal is not to confirm a preferred explanation.
The goal is to understand what actually happened.
V. Development
11. The history of discovery matters
A conclusion is useful.
Understanding how it was reached is often more valuable.
- How did people arrive at it?
- What mistakes were made?
- What alternatives were considered?
- Why did some ideas survive while others disappeared?
The path is often more informative than the destination.
12. Knowledge and understanding must remain in balance
Knowledge without understanding becomes memorization.
Understanding without knowledge becomes speculation.
Progress requires both.
13. An explanation should open a door, not close a question
A poor explanation says:
“It’s simple. Memorize it and stop thinking.”
The opposite extreme says:
“It’s too complicated. Don’t even try.”
Both positions are equally unhelpful.
A good explanation sounds like this:
“Here is the simplest model that allows you to begin understanding the phenomenon. It is not the whole picture, but it is a useful place to start.”
An explanation should be simple enough to enter the subject and honest enough to acknowledge that deeper layers exist.
Questions and Answers
-
Is this a new scientific method?
No.
The scientific method existed long before me and works perfectly well on its own.
Fossa Method is not a replacement for the scientific method. It is an attempt to articulate a set of principles that help formulate questions, build explanations, and distinguish observations from interpretations.
-
Is this a philosophy?
Not really.
It is a collection of practical observations that gradually emerged while working with aquatic animals, diagnosing diseases, analyzing data, and studying the history of science.
-
Why not simply use the scientific method?
The scientific method asks:
How do we test hypotheses?
Fossa Method more often asks:
How do we decide which question is worth asking in the first place?
-
Why is there so much emphasis on constraints?
Because many mistakes arise not from a lack of solutions, but from ignoring limitations.
Every solution improves something while creating new problems elsewhere.
-
Why so much emphasis on observation?
Because explanations often arrive before observations.
People see a phenomenon and immediately assign a cause.
There should always be a pause between observation and explanation.
What exactly did we observe?
-
Why criticize authority?
I do not criticize authority.
I criticize situations where authority replaces explanation.
Experience, expertise, and qualifications matter.
But neither position nor reputation constitutes evidence by itself.
-
Why does a fish-related website contain a page about thinking?
Because most articles on this site did not begin with answers.
They began with questions that felt incomplete.
Over time, it became clear that the same principles apply not only to fish pathology, but also to engineering, medicine, programming, education, and scientific research.
-
What is the core principle of Fossa Method?
If I had to choose only one, it would be:
Do not start with an answer. Start with a question.
See also:
Scientific Method. A Practical Guide.
Scientific Method. A Practical Guide.
How knowledge is formed, why confidence often outpaces understanding, and how the scientific method helps distinguish observation from …
Ichthyophthiriosis Without Myths
Ichthyophthiriosis Without Myths
A science-based analysis of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis: life cycle, cyst terminology, the myth of parasite ubiquity, and real mechanisms …
Hexamitids Without Myths
Hexamitids Without Myths
Why hexamitids are not a normal component of fish intestinal microflora, where the myth of 'internal parasites' comes from, and how …
Initial Diagnostics After Fish Transportation
Initial Diagnostics After Fish Transportation
Microscopy, smears, staining methods, and common mistakes in early diagnostics.
