The Perfect Catch
A Philosophy Paper - Fishing from a
different perspective.
Contributed Article by John Cunningham
Posted: 5/18/06
The
scientific method is a somewhat structured
way of solving problems. The interpretation
of the scientific method that this paper
will employ is viewing it as a path
hypothesizing, testing, then intelligently
correcting the hypothesis if it does not
work. Science, however, does not have a
monopoly on this method, and it can be
readily applied to a plethora of other
disciplines whether academic or
recreational. For my purposes, I am going to
apply it to a deep-sea fishing trip.
My goal, AO, is to catch a shark. I need to
have a good line, and good bait to catch the
shark. For clarification, a good line is one
that is strong enough to be able to hold the
fish’s mass and reel it in effectively. A
good bait is one that will attract and
entice the target species to the hook, so it
can be caught. My hypothesis is to start
with a line of a breaking strength
(breaking strength indicates with how
much force a fish has to fight before the
line breaks)
of eight pounds, and a lure that is a small,
plastic, neon-colored, worm-shaped lure. I
cast the line, and waited for the results. I
felt a bite, yanked the hook, and reeled my
catch in. What I caught was a fish that was
the size of a Smallmouth Bass. My AO was a
shark, and My PO was a bass-size fish. The
CAO cannot be measured exactly but I needed
a fish that weighed ninety-eight pounds
more. I decided to intelligently correct my
hypothesis. Sharks are large predators, and
they eat substantial size prey. I used a
small lure, and caught a small fish.
Therefore, I will use a bigger lure that is
more the size of a shark’s normal prey.
Also, sharks do not hunt for worms, because
worms are small and foreign to the deep sea.
For my PH, it follows that my lure should
look more like what a shark would hunt, a
fish. I put a blue plastic lure that was the
size and shape of a perch on my hook, and
cast it out. I eventually got a bite, and it
was a bigger and stronger fish. I was
fighting with it for a while, and I started
to pull it out of the water. I saw it and
could tell it weighed about twenty pounds,
but as it was coming up my fishing line
broke. I had slightly corrected the lure,
but had not corrected at all the fishing
line. The fish had gotten bigger with the
bigger bait, but I would need a stronger
line to match the bigger size. I deduced
that I needed to correct my line by
strengthening it. My EH is to use a line
with a thirty pound breaking strength to
compensate for the bigger fish’s weight. My
second hypothesis is to use a larger,
plastic, fish-shaped lure, and a line with a
breaking strength of thirty pounds.
It was time to test my second hypothesis. I
had my stronger line, and I was going to
keep my lure to see if I could catch
something even bigger with it. I cast my
line back in, and waited until I received
yet another bite. The line was much
stronger, and I nearly yanked it out of the
water. Sadly, it was the same fish that had
broken off earlier. My AO of the shark fell
short once again, because my PO was a
twenty-pound fish. The CAO was I needed a
fish that was a shark and weighed eighty
pounds more. I realized that I needed once
again to intelligently change the bait I was
using. Sharks were fairly smart creatures,
and had bigger brains than the twenty-pound
fish I was catching. It would make sense
that they could more readily detect a fake
fish. My PH was to use a live fish of the
same size, so the shark would not be
deterred by the fake bait. I got a bite this
one was really big it could be it. As I was
pulling it up I saw it was a barracuda
(which has about the same
poundage as the kind of shark I was looking
to catch), but
again as I was pulling it up my line broke.
Although I had strengthened the line, I had
not strengthened it enough. The barracuda’s
weight broke the line. I needed to correct
this mistake, and it was obvious I needed to
increase the line strength even more. Also,
I would use a bright colored line, so I
could see what kind of fish was coming for
my bait. This would help prevent me from
reeling in other types of fish. My EH was to
use the yellow, high visibility, sixty-pound
breaking strength line they had on the boat.
My third hypothesis was to use the live fish
bait, and a bright, sixty-pound breaking
strength line to catch the shark.
I was feeling very confident of acquiring my
AO with my third hypothesis with the
intelligent correction I had done. Again I
cast my line. This time the wait was a
substantial amount longer than I had been
accustomed to. The water was very clear and
I had a high-visibility line, so I could see
my fishing spot fairly well. Suddenly, I
became very excited, because the exact type
of shark I had been searching for was in the
vicinity of my bait. The shark was swimming
in the area, but paid no attention to my
baitfish. I looked around and realized there
were a very many fish in that area, and the
shark was distracted by them. My AO was
catching a shark, and My PO was a shark that
was not attracted to my bait. My CAO was not
having the shark caught on my hook. I needed
to correct my baiting technique to attract
the shark to my fish from the others. It
seemed to be common knowledge that sharks
were attracted to blood. I could use the
blood of the fish to attract the shark. My
PH was to cut the fish so it would bleed,
and the shark would then be more attracted
to it. I reeled in my bait and cut it deep
enough to start bleeding, but not deep
enough to kill it. I then cast my line out
again awaiting the results. My eyes followed
the bright yellow of my line to the spot
where it had landed. As soon as the fish had
settled, the shark darted towards the blood
and my bait. I finally felt my intelligent
correction had paid off, but just as the
shark was about to devour my bait get my
hook with it his eyes caught something and
he swam off. This was quite the
disappointment. What happened where the
shark would stop in mid bite and leave. I
obviously need to correct myself once again.
It could not have been the bait, because the
shark attraction to it was instantaneous,
and I had not seen prey so stunning that
would make the shark rush to it without
having my fish first. A shark is very much a
predatory animal, and would not have to run
from another predator. Then I realized the
most logical explanation was my line. I was
using a high-visibility line, so I could
more easily see the line. It would only make
sense that the shark could more easily see
it too, and feel suspicious. My EH was to
change my line from visibility to a darker
color, so it would not be as visible. My
fourth hypothesis was to have my baitfish be
alive but cut so it could bleed, and to have
a sixty-pound breaking strength with a
darker color.
I loaded on my new line and cut another fish
to put on my hook, and cast off. Once again,
the shark darted right over to my bleeding
bait and not seeing my line now, took a bite
right into it. The shark was hooked. He put
up quite a struggle, but I pulled it in. My
AO matched my PO, and I think I had enough
fishing and intelligent correction for the
day.
The scientific method is a structure that is
sometimes question by philosophers and
scientists alike. However, using intelligent
correction to solve problems is structured,
and does work. Science does not have
domination of this method, and it has been
demonstrated to be easily applied to even
the very leisurely hobby of fishing. Indeed,
it would be wise to more often use the
scientific method in our daily lives.
Contributed article by John Cunningham - a
friend of Andrew Ragas at Loyola University
Chicago.
