PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
KevinCompounds said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.