DoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
lisa_labSD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultslisa_labSD 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. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Reporting back.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.