Dr.SportsMedIN said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
MariaRD said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Pushing back on Dr.SportsMedIN here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.