Originally, I had no intention of creating a method, a philosophy, or a worldview. I was simply trying to understand questions that seemed incomplete.
- Why did the fish die?
- Why did the treatment fail?
- Why can the same symptoms lead to different conclusions?
- Why do many explanations sound convincing while failing to explain the underlying mechanism?
- Why are some questions considered settled when, upon closer inspection, nobody can confidently explain the details?
Over time, it became clear that these problems were not limited to fish pathology. They appear in science, education, engineering, medicine, 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 repeatedly use when working with aquatic organisms, analyzing data, reading scientific literature, and building explanations. That collection of principles eventually became known as the Fossa Method.
In Brief
- Start with observation, not explanation.
- Do not confuse description with cause.
- Every system has constraints.
- Every model has limits.
- Simplicity should be the result of understanding.
- Demystify knowledge.
- Complexity cannot be eliminated.
- Look for contradictions.
- Authority does not replace mechanism.
- Respect the object of study.
- The story is more important than the answer.
- Understanding and knowledge must remain in balance.
- An explanation should open a door, not close a question.
I. Observation
1. Start with observation, not explanation
The most common mistake is explaining a phenomenon before it has been properly described.
A fish is swimming near the surface and breathing heavily. That is an observation.
The statement “it has a bacterial infection” is already an explanation, and one that has not yet been supported by evidence.
First describe the symptoms. Only then begin looking for their cause.
Start with: “What happened?”, “What did we observe?”, “What did we measure?”, “What was recorded?”
Only afterwards ask: “Why did it happen?”
2. Do not confuse description with cause
Description is not explanation.
The statement “the fish died from stress” does not explain the mechanism of death.
What exactly happened?
Did the fish stop feeding? Was there trauma? Failure of osmoregulation? Respiratory impairment? Some other process that can be observed and tested?
The real question is:
“What mechanism produced the observed outcome?”
II. Constraints
3. Every system has constraints
A system is a collection of interconnected elements working together toward a particular goal.
In aquaculture, a system may be an aquarium, a filtration system, a population of fish, or even the organization of staff. Changing one element inevitably affects the others.
Increasing stocking density allows more animals to be kept in the same volume of water, but it also increases the load on the filtration system and raises the risk of conflicts between individuals.
Constraints cannot be eliminated.
They can only be redistributed.
Every solution creates new constraints.
Therefore, the key question should always be:
“What constraint are we trying to change, and what will appear in its place?”
4. Every model has limits
A model is a simplified representation of reality that helps us understand or predict the behavior of a system.
Every model discards some details in exchange for usefulness.
Models can be mathematical, biological, engineering-based, or even verbal.
A medication may work effectively against one parasite while being completely ineffective against another. A method that solves one problem does not automatically become a universal solution.
Likewise, the statement “fin rot is caused by bacteria” is a model that explains some cases of fin damage. However, it does not account for trauma, nutritional deficiencies, hemorrhage, or other factors that can produce similar changes. A model remains useful only as long as we remember its limits.
There are no universal solutions.
There are no medications that solve every problem.
There are no diagnostic signs that apply to every case.
There are no methods that work equally well under all conditions.
The question is not: “Does the model work?”
The more important question is: “Where does the model stop working?”
III. Understanding
5. Simplicity should be the result of understanding
The statement “gas bubble disease is caused by excess dissolved gas” simplifies the phenomenon while preserving its mechanism.
The statement “gas bubble disease is caused by bubbles in the water” sounds simpler, but it distorts the process itself.
Simplification is useful.
Oversimplification is dangerous.
A good explanation:
- removes unnecessary details;
- preserves what is essential;
- reveals the mechanism.
A poor explanation:
- removes the mechanism itself.
6. Demystify knowledge
Ziehl–Neelsen staining may appear to be a complicated laboratory procedure. In reality, its purpose can be reduced to two steps: stain the target structure and then remove the stain from surrounding tissues while retaining it within mycobacteria.
Complex terminology does not make an idea profound.
Terminology exists for precision, not for authority.
Knowledge should become more accessible, not more mysterious.
7. Complexity cannot be eliminated
Some parasites can be identified using nothing more than a microscope and a simple smear. However, determining the exact nature of certain diseases may require additional investigations. Simplicity is valuable only when it does not distort reality.
Some things are genuinely complex.
If the object itself is complex, the description may also need to be complex.
Complexity is not a flaw.
Pretending complexity does not exist is.
IV. Inquiry
8. Look for contradictions
If every sign points toward a bacterial disease but bacteriological testing fails to confirm it, that contradiction becomes the reason to reconsider the original hypothesis.
The most interesting observations are not confirmations.
The most interesting observations are those that do not fit the existing picture.
They are what move understanding forward.
9. Authority does not replace mechanism
An expert opinion has value, but its value increases when it is possible to understand which observations, data, and reasoning led to that conclusion.
A position is not evidence.
Experience alone is not evidence.
A publication record is not evidence.
If a mechanism cannot be explained, authority does not make the explanation correct.
10. Respect the object of study
A poorly performed necropsy can destroy evidence before it is ever examined. Careful work preserves information that may later become essential for understanding the cause of death.
A fish is not a statistical unit.
A stain is not a ritual.
A necropsy is not a formality.
Every observation is a source of information.
The goal of the investigator is not to confirm a preferred explanation, but to understand what actually happened.
V. Growth
11. The story is more important than the answer
Knowing that physicians eventually began washing their hands before surgery is useful. Understanding which observations led to that conclusion—and why the idea was resisted for so long—is even more valuable.
A final conclusion is useful.
But it is often more useful to understand:
- how that conclusion was reached;
- which mistakes were made;
- which alternatives were considered;
- why some ideas failed while others survived.
The history of discovery is often more valuable than the result itself.
12. Understanding and knowledge must remain in balance
It is possible to memorize the life cycle of a parasite without understanding its significance. It is equally possible to speculate about parasites without knowing their biology. Knowledge becomes useful only when facts and understanding support one another.
Knowledge without understanding becomes memorization.
Understanding without knowledge becomes imagination.
Growth requires both.
13. An explanation should open a door, not close a question
A good explanation allows a person to take the next step independently. It provides a working model without creating the illusion that the subject has been exhausted.
A poor explanation says:
“It’s simple. Memorize it and stop thinking.”
The opposite extreme says:
“It’s so complicated that you shouldn’t even try.”
Both positions are equally harmful.
A good explanation sounds more like:
“Here is the simplest model that allows you to begin understanding the phenomenon. It is not the whole picture.”
An explanation should be simple enough to provide an entry point and honest enough to acknowledge that deeper levels of understanding still 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.
