Dr.PulmRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
traveltech_sara said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardstraveltech_sara said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.