Introduction
The question “how do you know that?” can be irritating.
Not because it is wrong — but because it is difficult to answer honestly.
In most cases, the answer sounds confident, but is based not on verification, but on habit, experience, or someone else’s conclusions.
The problem is not that we don’t know.
The problem is that we don’t know — and yet we are confident that we do.
How knowledge is formed
Knowledge does not appear as a finished answer.
It is assembled gradually — from observations, errors, and attempts to explain what is seen.
The history of science is not a sequence of discoveries, but a chain of refinements.
New data rarely overturn everything at once. More often, they reveal the limitations of previous explanations.
Even simple questions may require years of observation and verification.
Sometimes — a lifetime.
What we often mistake for knowledge
- what “everyone says”
- what “has always been done”
- what resembles a familiar case
- what conveniently explains what we see
All of these can be useful.
None of them, by themselves, constitute evidence.
The most dangerous error is not the absence of knowledge,
but confidence in an explanation that has not been tested.
This becomes especially evident in fish pathology
The same symptom may have different causes.
Similar changes may arise from entirely different processes.
The presence of a sign does not imply understanding of the mechanism.
Gas bubbles are not always gas bubble disease.
White spots are not always the same parasite.
Hyperemia is not always inflammation.
Without a method, observation easily turns into speculation —
and speculation into confident explanation.
What the scientific method is in practice
The scientific method is not a formula or a set of terms.
It is a way of working with reality.
It includes:
- observation
- recording conditions
- comparison of signs
- testing alternative explanations
- rejecting convenient explanations when they fail under scrutiny
It does not guarantee the correct answer.
But it reduces the likelihood of being confidently wrong.
What changes with this approach
- fewer “instant diagnoses”
- less ritual treatment
- better understanding of causes rather than symptoms
- greater caution in conclusions
Most importantly, it allows distinguishing observation from interpretation.
The scientific method does not make the work easier — it makes it more honest.
It does not eliminate errors — but it prevents them from going unnoticed.
It is not a way to always be right — it is a way to avoid being confidently wrong.
Core principles
The method does not begin with an answer.
It begins with observation.
1. Data collection
Observation must be separated from interpretation.
Record what is actually observed:
- fish behavior
- external appearance
- changes over time
- environmental conditions
Do not explain — describe.
Not “the fish is sick”, but “the fish is lying on the bottom, respiration is increased”.
2. Recording conditions
Every observation has context. Without it, data lose meaning.
Record:
- temperature
- water parameters
- system changes
- feeding
- transfers, stress
The same symptom under different conditions represents different situations.
3. Keeping records
Memory distorts sequence. Records do not.
Record:
- what happened
- when
- under what conditions
- what changed after intervention
Without records, it is impossible to distinguish cause from consequence.
4. Comparing signs
A single sign does not constitute a diagnosis.
Meaning arises from their combination.
Compare:
- which signs match
- which contradict
- what is missing despite expectations
The absence of a sign can be more important than its presence.
5. Testing alternatives
The first explanation is usually the most convenient.
And often wrong.
Ask:
what else could explain this?
If at least one alternative exists, it must be considered.
6. Minimal intervention
Intervention changes the system — sometimes faster than we can understand it.
The more simultaneous actions:
- the harder it is to identify the cause
- the higher the risk of incorrect conclusions
Fewer actions, but with understanding of their effect.
7. Evaluating outcomes
Every action is a hypothesis. The result is its test.
Improvement does not always mean the cause was identified.
Lack of improvement does not always invalidate the hypothesis.
Evaluate:
- what changed
- how quickly
- how stable the effect is
Important
The method is not a sequence of steps to complete.
It is a way of thinking applied at every stage.
It does not require complex equipment.
It requires accuracy in observation and honesty in conclusions.
This is what distinguishes knowledge from assumption.
References
- Ferguson, H.W., 2006. Systemic Pathology of Fish: A Text and Atlas of Comparative Tissue Responses in Diseases of Teleosts, 2nd ed. Scotian Press, London.
- Kuhn, T.S., 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Noga, E.J., 2010. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames.
- Popper, K.R., 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge, London.
