Dr.GutHealth said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Pushing back on Dr.GutHealth here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Dr.GutHealth said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Dr.GutHealth said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
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. 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.
roxy_nash said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.