PeptideChemSF said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PeptideChemSF said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
PeptideChemSF said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask.
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 BiochemFrom 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
ingrid_STO said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.