DanielChem_CHI said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
DanielChem_CHI said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PathRoch said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower.
Dr.PathRoch said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.