raj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
raj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
raj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
chris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.