Dr.PathRoch said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at Dr.PathRoch’s question from a different direction. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Following on from Dr.PathRoch — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.RaviCardio said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
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.
Reporting back.
Update: the excursion was survivable and the vial was fine. I now keep a cheap fridge thermometer, which costs nothing and ends the argument.