josh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
josh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemsean_dublin said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
sean_dublin said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.